Since the original thread has been temporarily locked by the moderator, and since allancw brought up 9/11 which doesn't belong there, and since he presented an interesting claim about a photo of one of the planes on 9/11, I thought I'd answer it here.
The claim is that the plane doesn't show the expected motion blur given the plane's speed of one engine length in a video frame lasting 1/60 sec.
A counterclaim has been made that given the camera's viewing angle the speed would appear to be much less. But this can't be the reason because the engine is foreshortened by an equal amount; the plane would still appear to move one engine length in 1/60 second.
But there's a perfectly good explanation that has nothing to do with deception: the exposure time of the sensor is not equal to the inter-frame time. It varies with sensor gain, scene illumination and lens aperture (f-stop) setting.
This scene was shot in full daylight. Given the remarkable sensitivity of consumer digital video cameras in low light, the exposure time in this scene would have been far less than 1/60 sec, leading to much less motion blur on an individual video frame.
Another factor is camera motion. I have not examined it frame-by-frame, but the camera did move to the right to follow the moving aircraft and this would also have helped reduce any motion blur even if the exposure time had been relatively long.
Oh, by the way, the frame rate in US standard TV is 29.97 Hz, not 60 Hz. That's the field rate; in interlaced TV each frame is divided into two fields, one containing the odd scan lines and the other containing the even scan lines. I do not know whether consumer digital cameras producing files for display on a computer produce interleaved video or not.
