From what I can make of the Blunder's position his expectation seems to be, for a given sequence of frames at 10fps, say A, B, C, D the result should be, when filmed at 30fps, should be the sequence A, A, A, B, B, B, C, C, C, D, D, D precisely.
FWIW, I really like the visualisation on wiki.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg
Explains what the Blunder is seeing at a glance.
That is a really good visualisation. Thanks, it helped me understand the problem a little more.
Your most welcome. I learned all this stuff back in my college day a long time ago and I could waffle on, but this really IS a case where a picture is worth many more than a thousand words.. It also demonstrates the interlaced nature of the image as drawn on your traditional TV. Literally, the electron beam in your old TV draws the odd rows, then the even rows continuously, one after another. The phosphor at the front of the CRT has a persistence. It glows for a time, short I grant you, Still it is sufficient to fool the human eye into seeing a continuously moving image.
The question naturally arises from all this...where is the limit? At what framerate can the human eye detect that there even are frames at all. There are whole flame wars about that, but it seems to be a subjective thing. 24 fps is generally put about as the limit. I can visually detect anything below 25fps because you are getting borderline. some people claim to be able to detect anything below 30fps.
In any event the wiki from which I filched that graphic has a pretty good explanation. And more explanatory graphics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_downNow if you move on into the modern digital era, it all gets a lot more complex and that is why provenance of any video is critically important to any claim one might make