Balsamo wrong again - NTSB map rotation

reply to post by johndoex

And responding to the last paragraph now:

Originally posted by johndoex

To put this in perspective... CL, you have 1147 views of this thread (as of this post) in over a half a year, which you admit was titled to slander "in order to get my attention",

Slander - that's spoken. Written is libel. Craig and I already covered this (see page 1, if you forgot). I told the truth to hurt your reputation. Please double-check your definitions before repeating this idiocy.

add another 100 or so vews from your new videos, and perhaps even less on your blog (going by YT views linked from your blog and here). We do 1000+ views in less than 6 hours on a slow day (which doesnt include radio/TV interviews). But hey, keep up the great work!

Regards,
Rob

So you've got quantity, great. The magic of media saturation, appeal to Trutherism, appeal to expertise, heedless bluster, and perhaps the magic of paid bots. So the masses seem to agree with you and are ignoring me, and your pointing this out, as a tactic, smells of avoidance of the core issues here.

Rob: now that I've proven the obvious conclusion you have downplayed all your past statements to the contrary, passed yourself off as mr. rotation and thus me as a liar.

So, if "Map rotation is pretty much what we been saying since day 1 and have said on almost every radio and TV interview," what did you mean when you have said things like this?


"When we first received the animation, i had thought perhaps the NTSB messed up on the graphical presentation as well [...] However, if you look at the initial phases of flight [...] Also, we have further evidence which confirms the flight path.. including witnesses [...]"
“the NTSB data, the plot, the animation that they plot out, has it on the north side of that Citgo gas station […] also corroborated by Pentagon police officers, filmed on location, betting their life on it that it was on that side of the gas station. […] [The PentaCon] corroborates the flight data recorder as far as the flight path being north…"
“The heading (in the little instrument) was altered, to confuse the average layman and to grab suckers to buy the official story and the fact the professionals at the NTSB 'screwed up' in their plot.”
"the map isnt rotated"
"the map isnt rotated. We are not sure exactly how the NTSB made their plot as they are refusing to answer any questions. […] The only thing that doesnt correspond is the heading in the heading indicator at end of flight [...]"

And this isn't even getting into your explanations of the grid, as far as being accurate, proportionate, and oriented to true N-S. All these claims are also wrong, but helped you argue the points above. How the heck did that happen?

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Mmm, soon and sooner now that people are watching. A week or so... lotta graphics to update... will post it here.

BTW, I can think of no honest mistake normal reason to turn the map 7 degrees CCW relative to any grid. That's not a backwards mag correction as I and others had speculated on... it's weird.

The small patch of the Pentagon, and the runway patch are the only sections the NTSB added to an aircraft only animation. The runway and Pentagon are not placed using FDR data, but manually. Proof of this is the fact 77's FDR show 77 3000 feet south of the runway. The NTSB had to place the runway under the plane on the animation.

Yep! I measured the discrepancy once as roughly as 1/2 mile - so 3000 feet or so south of the runway but parallel to it. It could be they corrected all the offsets and then set the runway, or just drew it in under the plane since obv. it was on the runway. But it's not connected to the grid or the error would be too obvious as it drove across the runway and took off from a field.

I think the grid/runway intersection may be what John Farmer first thought was a 'heading alteration' where the data shift to south path started. If so I'd guess the other 10-ish was where the grid met the overlay map. If so, his old guess was actually a misreading of this grid/map rotation problem and thus further verification. (originals no longer in the open, waiting on e-mail from Farmer for details).

Thanks for the other commnents...

CL has got his stuff together on math and physics, he can help you correct your errors and learn?

On common sense yes, but when lotsa numbers and stuff comes in... all I really claim to have for sure is this, which it seems is becoming less a technical issue anyway, since we all seem to agree now the map was rotated.

The question now is the one set by the thread title - does map rotation prove Balsamo wrong? Or just confirm what he says he's always believed?

Rob, were you trying to tell me that with your first posts on page 1? If so it didn't come through too clear...

"Here is a sketch i did awhile ago... Back to the drawing board for you CL. Lets take a quick rundown of some of CL's past claims..."

Somehow I read it as a vague explanation the map wasn't turned. But maybe a vague way of saying you decided the same thing. Why so vague?

[typos]


[edit on 14-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Craig and I already covered this (see page 1, if you forgot). I told the truth to hurt your reputation.

From page 1 -

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
In light of [Caustic Logic] instant concessions and his failure to make a coherent or relevant point [...] completely unjustified and totally libelous title of this thread that he ADMITTED was created to get Rob's attention.

CL Replies -

That's probably fair. I apologize for that. I'm glad it worked though. I'll even take a warn if need be.

The fact that people like you continue to make excuses and try to "hurt the reputation of others" on a message board over what you feel is error filled data being distributed through the Freedom Of Information Act to the American public instead of contacting such agencies as we have trying to get answers, speaks volumes of your motivations and agenda.

CL, this thread has hurt your reputation more than mine. And if our organization growth since the creation of this thread is any indication, one could say you may have helped my "reputation". Keep bumping it!


Regards



typo

[edit on 17-4-2008 by johndoex]

reply to post by johndoex


But surely, if the animation was a 'working copy' which was not disseminated to the 'american public' until someone requested it under the FOIA and then disseminated it themselves, how can the agency which produced the erroneous animation be considered to be at fault?


[Mod Edit Removed quote]

Mod Note Please Review: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

[edit on 17/4/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by PatchesOHoulihan
reply to post by johndoex

 

But surely, if the animation was a 'working copy' which was not disseminated to the 'american public' until someone requested it under the FOIA and then disseminated it themselves, how can the agency which produced the erroneous animation be considered to be at fault?

When the agency themselves say they "want everything as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA" perhaps? When after saying such, they account for a clock annotation error in the animation but no other "error" is mentioned?

Claim 7

reply to post by johndoex

Rob, why did they put the runway under the animation, since the jet nav system said it was in the dirt 3000 feet south?

The runway was place by hand under the animation.
The Pentagon was place by hand under the animation.

If you had more experience you would know the animation is just airplane, then the extras are added. If you need some help just ask.

reply to post by PatchesOHoulihan

The animation the NTSB does are not for locating where a plane went. The nav system on 77 was only accurate to 3000 feet to a 1/4 mile; that is a fact.

The runway and the Pentagon patch, are placed under the animation by "hand". The raw data at take off had 77 off in the dirt 3000 feet south of the runway. The NTSB placed the runway under the animation, and it was easy, the pilot flys down the runway, the heading information is accurate to 1 or 2 degrees, as all pilots know. The problem placing the Pentagon is even tougher.

The animation is not tied to the ground, it is developed from FDR numbers to show pitch, roll, yaw, left and right movement, up and down, movement and forward and backward movement. No navigation data is included. At the end of flight the Pentagon has to be placed by hand. Making an error in variation can give an error of 18 degrees when lining the pentagon with the grid. An error in grid or the Pentagon based on true or magnetic heading is possible. But the animation is still not used to show where the plane is.

There are possible errors the NTSB made placing the Pentagon.
1 They just placed it in front of the jet
2 they applied variation wrong
3 They placed the Pentagon and were going to check it but did not

The fact is there is no data from the FDR to make an accurate placement of the Pentagon.

To use the animation as a position for 77 is ludicrous. In addition the animation was not done, the altimeters were not finished. At take off the altimeters are corrected for local altimeter setting, this has to be done by "hand". During cruise above 18000 feet, 2992 was set in the animation altimeters, after local was set for takeoff. But when on descent the PA is not corrected at 18000 feet for local altimeter. Is this another error? Or just a working copy.

No, this is a working copy, not intended for locating where a plane went. I have never seen a FDR used to locate where a plane went because the location of the FDR confirms that fact. Like matching serial numbers to an airframe; stupid unless two jets collide and knowing which part is whose, is important to the accident investigation. Working copy is the key, and made up ideas to imply false conclusions is done to sell DVDs.

"The Safety Boards goal in providing information to FOIA requesters is to provide the most complete, accurate information possible."


"Duh-Bunkers" always love to omit the above quote.



Why arent Beachnut, CL (and people like them) contacting the NTSB to correct/comment on their "errors" as we have done? Why are people such as Beachnut and CL not concerned that their own tax dollars are producing "error" filled data to the American Public via easy access request form on the web? (of which CL couldnt even find initially and accused us of "fabricating" the animation).

Again, we have gained core members within our organization not due to the fact they dont believe the govt story, quite the contrary, due to the Flight Safety issues alone. The FDR's should be alot more accurate. And after further research, consulting with real FDR experts, etc.. .they are. After all, lives depend on it.

The people above who make excuses for such information provided by the NTSB show their clear agenda when they not only show they are on a smearing campaign, but admit it.

Keep in mind, this time last year Beachnut thought TSO-124 and ED-55 was "hearsay". He claims he has worked with FDR's, but wasnt even aware of such regulations.

So, here we have a janitor and an anonymous "FDR Expert", one on an admitted smear campaign, the other not familair with any of the regulations and precedent (also on apparent smear campaign if you ever read his posts at JREF), against those seeking answers from US Govt agencies. Hmmm... is anyone really confused of the agenda here?

With that said, again, we feel the map may be rotated, however we will not make excuses or stop our pursuit for comment/corrections until a Govt agency responds, and we'll take it from there.

As has been repeated ad naseum, and has been ignored by those obsessed to "hurt reputations", the flight path is secondary to us. All other blatant conflicting data are primary. Our time spent reviewing the flight path reflects this. We certainly wont waste our time reviewing the work of a janitor who is wrong 99.9% of the time who admits his agenda is to "hurt reputations" instead of seeking answers.

Regards

Originally posted by johndoex
"The Safety Boards goal in providing information to FOIA requesters is to provide the most complete, accurate information possible."


"Duh-Bunkers" always love to omit the above quote.

ermmmmmm..... you seriously think that when they say "most complete and accurate" that this relates to the content of the documentation provided and not the scope of documents which fall under the description of the applicants request?

Seriously?

So, maybe if I were to ask for all documents relating to the redecoration of the Directors office and I get supplied one document which says the walls are to be painted blue, but in reality we know those walls are yellow, this would be a deliberate deception by the NTSB? Or maybe they just supplied me with all the documentation they had on file relating to my request, regardless if those documents were actually the ones used at the end of the day to instruct the painters.

If the animation was sufficiently complete to be considered an accurate representation of the flight into the Pentagon, why wouldn't they have released it anyway?

It's only because someone has gone and asked for it that they are duty bound to release it even though it may not be complete or accurate. What you then do with it or what hopes you pin on it is not really their concern.

Originally posted by PatchesOHoulihan
ermmmmmm..... you seriously think that when they say "most complete and accurate" that this relates to the content of the documentation provided and not the scope of documents which fall under the description of the applicants request?

Seriously?

Considering the fact that quote is located within the context of referring to the clock annotation error and that the same document does not account for any other errors your cohorts claim, yes.. .seriously.

Did you not read the context? Seriously?

deliberate deception by the NTSB?

Please quote where we state "deliberate deception by the NTSB" on pilotsfor911truth.org Mr Strawman.

It's only because someone has gone and asked for it that they are duty bound to release it even though it may not be complete or accurate. What you then do with it or what hopes you pin on it is not really their concern.

Thanks for making it clear that you are not concerned, will accept error filled data from the US govt through the Freedom Of Information Act sans accountability and even go so far as to make excuses for it on message boards. You do this for a govt that has a reputation for lies, corruption, cover-ups and crime.

The people listed here are concerned.

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

Keep an eye on the lists as they grow regularly.

Happy painting!



typo

[edit on 17-4-2008 by johndoex]

reply to post by johndoex


Rob please, that's blatant cherry-picking. You can cite no error on my part except where I erroneously (trying to be too reasonable) say a title change would be fair. I have retracted that 'admission.' Neither you nor Craig can show where I'm lying or even wrong and this utterly predictable attempt to justifyy his charges of libel and yours of slander only strengthens my position. Thanks.

The fact that people like you abuse the uncertainties created when the NTSB puts out bad data and then refuses to answer questions, to answer them yourself in deceptive ways that require mass debunkings you ignore while focusing on the motivations of others speaks volumes about you and your honesty.

Rob, I contacted the NTSB as you know. They answered even less questions for me. I refuse to let this silence cripple me or make me a north-path speculating idiot. So I figured it out myself, no help from you. We know HOW it is there SEEMS to be a north path, but not why, and I doubt we'll ever get a true answer from them as to WHY.

And hey, thanks ever so much for watching out for my reputation. I'm really touched, Mr. gotamillionmembers.

And if you'd like, feel free to explain why you spent so long running around saying the heading was altered, the NoC witnesses match the FDR, the grid is accurate, the map isn't rotated, and the north path illusion was the only real thing in the FDR - when you now say you never believed that. Otherwise it just looks like you were deceptively capitalizing on the (coincidental?) similarities to sell DVDs and get a reputation and whatnot.

Pilots for what again? Ah.... 9/11 Truth, very different from the plain old truth it seems.

More to share in a bit when the video's done uploading.

Dang youtube videos take forever to upload...

Originally posted by PatchesOHoulihan
reply to post by johndoex

 

But surely, if the animation was a 'working copy' which was not disseminated to the 'american public' until someone requested it under the FOIA and then disseminated it themselves, how can the agency which produced the erroneous animation be considered to be at fault?

I do find it odd that, as Rob points out, they go to pains to explain the time stamp problem (was never a problem for me - clearly 4 hours off and easy to correct). This is to be "as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA," and yet no mention of anything else wrong. It does give the impression they checked it and the time was the only problem.

That aside, good point. They had it, people were beating down their door... no, wait. First release, it was slipped in unannounced and unrequested. No one knew it existed until Calum Douglas opened his mailer on Aug 17 2006.
video explanation
text explanation

But otherwise, good point. Somehow it was off, the discrepancy is not too hard to find, everybody guessed rotation, so once it got out to the public there was no need for confusion. True they have refused to answer questions, but I needed NO answers from the NTSB to discover how they plotted their north path.

Thus the NTSB cannot be blamed for what happened from August 17 onward. Except for the refusing to comment thing, but that's passive...

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by johndoex

"Duh-Bunkers" always love to omit the above quote.

Keep in mind, this time last year Beachnut thought TSO-124 and ED-55 was "hearsay". He claims he has worked with FDR's, but wasnt even aware of such regulations.

What did I say about the standards. Source. Quotes please. Your source is a salesman, you expert is a salesman. Great expert. But wait, getting a statement from a salesman, that is hearsay. Does 77 FDR have to comply with 124 and 55 on 9/11? Why do you never answer? If you like, I can comment on the standards when you finally present them, instead of you posting hearsay from some salesman at the FDR company. Salesman?

Does 77 FDR have to meet a standard when it was built before the standard you have?

Please post the relevant passage of 124 and 55 that apply, can you?

The NTSB had a working copy of the animation, they do not have to finish it. So why report errors that have nothing to do with solving the accident, that was not an accident? Sounds like you forgot what the NTSB really does. It does not solve murders and suicides terrorist acts. Also, the animation is not used to see where a plane goes, and on this model 757, the accuracy is 3000 feet to ½ mile. So the termination of Flight 77 was solved on 9/11, due to the evidence, real evidence, not made up fantasy by a few people who can not even stand by a single conclusion, they only imply things with faulty logic and failed assumptions. But at least there is a fantasy conspiracy theory crowd who buy it.

I asked before, please post quotes from 124 and 55 that are relevant to this thread or 77 FDR which was found in the Pentagon with the remains of all souls on board, 911. Good post Rob.

That Darn NTSB cartoon, part 3:


link


edit - fixed embed

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Beachnut,

arent you tired of going in circles?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Beachy, im not really sure of Ed's title at L3 as he isnt "our expert", rather one who we were patched through to at L3 for FDR Questions. Do you have a source for your claims? Does it really matter his title?

However, sales managers have to have product knowledge and are also engineers. They have to be better than the engineers. After all, they have to sell the product to airline fleets worldwide. Ya think? He certainly knows more about FDR's than you do. You didnt even know what ED-55 and TSO-124 was last year on this very thread. You called it "hearsay...". lol... today.. almost a year later, you confirm it. Thanks!

Beachy, regardless of ED-55 and TSO-124, you still cannot come up with a figure to support the govt story. Each figure you have claimed, you have been shown is still too high. Then you delete your figures after being quoted and proven it doesnt support the govt story. You're not too honest, are you Beachy.

By the way, its good to see you're actually looking into this information, instead of just claiming you were an "FDR Expert". Took you how long, almost a year? Pssst... 1990 is still before 2001. Beachy trying so hard to prove "P4T wrong" has in fact incriminated himself and his story once again. ED-55 is .5 sec buffer lag standard. If it was effective in 1990 as you claim (which you are wrong here too), it was effective for 2001. New regulations that supercede do not become more liberal with "buffer lag" as you have claimed is 4 seconds. Ya think? Every FDR manufacturer touts as being ED-55 and TSO-124 compliant.

You lie, you been caught. Beachy, you are not what you claim. You have never worked on FDR's. Your "4 seconds buffer lag" claims are all over this thread. Today, you just confirmed ED-55 0.5 second standard buffer lag was effective on Sept 11, which you avoided last year. Although, your effective date is still wrong, but it still serves the purpose.

One day, if i feel like it, i'll pull out the regs and prove you wrong regarding date. But the fact remains, as you claim, ED-55 was effective prior to 9/11 ,more than 10 years prior according to you.. it set the standard for .5 second buffer lag proving your 4 second claim a lie, and you cannot come up with a figure to support your precious fairy tale. When proven it doesnt support your fairy tale, you delete the content after already being quoted. Poor form Beachy.

Also, thanks for spreading this all over the net. Im not surprised you dont come to our forum to discuss it, but we are getting hits from every old thread you bump. Its ironic i just put up the "Media Blackout" article the other day for all to see when they click the links in the threads you bump. Thanks!

(disclaimer: i know many of you "critical thinkers" may be thinking Beachy really works for us as controlled opposition as his arguments are easily spotted as a typical strawman, but i assure you, this is just the way Beachy is.... he's an old timer, so we give him some slack.)

Source-
www.democraticunderground.com...

I posted this for Beachy many times on other forums, but it appears he either cannot grasp the concept of "time from measurement to being recorded" or intentionally ignores it.

Email exchange with L3 Communications. (portions bolded this time around due to the fact Beachy and his cohorts havent been unable to digest the below information presented ad nauseam in the past)

4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?

L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,

5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?

L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

6: In the case of a major accident like CFIT (controlled flight into
terrain) how much data (in terms of seconds of flight) is typically
lost? (For example signals still being processed by the DFDAU).

L-3Response:

With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders,
typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder or
FDAU is terminated.

Beachy, was AA77 carrying an SSFDR? This will give you a hint about ED-55 and TSO-124 being "effective" since you dont seem to know. The next thing i suggest is you pick up the phone yourself and/or email L3. If AA77 was carrying an SSFDR, what caused the SSFDR to terminate power at the 2, 4, 6, or 8 seconds from the wall (as you and your cohorts claim) if SSFDR's are built to lose no more than 0.5 seconds? Did Hani pull the circuit breaker on his 460 knot Nap of the Earth mission? And why didnt the NTSB stop the recording at 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 seconds from the wall, or increase the calculated impact time if the SSFDR is truly missing such data? Do you and your cohorts know more than the NTSB? Or is this another "error" they do not account for when stating they want everything as "accuarate and complete as possible". Ask apathoid how they calculated time of impact Beachy. He seems to know, you dont.


CL, you have proven once again to be a huge waste of time. Hopefully your new video can break 200 views. Best of luck...

Also, It appears CIT has some new evidence for you. You should check it out "AdamSonOfLars". Especially since the thread will get more views than your videos will ever get on both of your YT accounts.

z3.invisionfree.com...


Regards,
Rob


typo

[edit on 18-4-2008 by johndoex]

Rob... Yeah I saw that. Thank you sir, I was hoping to keep the kid out of this. I had a feeling of dread when I realized I was still logged into his youtube account when responding to you. I hoped you'd be mature enough to leave that alone, but of course I was mistaken. I swear man, I would punch you square in the face if we were in the same room.

To the mods: not an actual threat! Please leave in...

But we're in a discussion forum where I must conduct myself maturely. I would appreciate you edit out the account name that directs your possibly crazy fans to that page. Then I will take back the punching thing. At least CIT's pics aren't sourced and are actually just funny.

Oh and nice op research there too. All kinds of great stuff to make fun of me and all you had to do was click that link you'd never seen. Genius!

Aside from that... insults, evasion, self-congratulation, links, insults, derailment, distraction, insults, links. I remind you the subject of this thread is that map rotation issue you say doesn't even matter. If you have nothing to say on that, the forum would be better served by your keeping quiet.





[edit on 18-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

reply to post by johndoex

You are quoting a salesman... (nothing wrong with an expert being a salesman)
So you will not pull out the reg and show us? ou just tell us, and throw in some hearsay from your expert FDR guy, a salesman. Ok

One day, if i feel like it, i'll pull out the regs and prove you wrong …

Sure you will, this is like your 11.2 error in physics when you arbitrary pick numbers to divide and come up with the big wrong number. . Big error will be corrected when, and when will you "pull out the regs"?

Let me get this, the reg says the FDR can't loose data? Kind of like saying the Titanic is unsinkable? Wowzer.

This is indicative of your big physics error, and you map rotation error, as this thread shows.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by beachnut]

Beachy,

Are you saying the regulation/standard doesnt exists because i refuse to hold your hand and provide it for you?

You're an airman (supposedly), you claim to have worked with FDR's (supposedly), go look it up yourself.

Better yet, call L3 and/or email them as i suggested above. Record it if you call. Post it on YT.


Beachy, the amount of time you people spend obsessed with our work, making excuses for the conflicts, certainly you can prove L3 wrong on something as simple as ED-55, TSO-124 claims?

One of my favorite quotes from Beachy in response to the email exchange with L3 Communications.

Funny, that is a false statement by L-3

Beachy is saying L3, the manufacturer of the FDR, is lying. Just like he says the NTSB is wrong. But yet, he cant confirm ED-55 and/or TSO-124. Unable to look up any page on an FDR Manufacturers website touting their FDR's as being ED-55 and TSO-124 compliant. Didnt have a clue what these regs were last year. This year says the regs were effective in 1990, but still unsure if they were effective 2001. Unable to call or email any FDR manufacturer regarding such regs. Can anyone say denial?

www.democraticunderground.com...


It must all be a conspiracy by the US Govt to plant witnesses and disseminate data that doesnt support the govt story. Right CL?

Too funny.

reply to post by johndoex


So you can not post the standard. Okay.
I understand I have quoted the standard, but you will not even post the relevant selections and explain if it refers to system lag time, or what. Find, do not post what you say it says. Just quote the salesman, your expert FDR guy. Fair. Nice post, very informative.

Guess you will never post the relevant portions of 55 for us, or 124. What was the purpose of your post then? Just to tell me you will not ever post the relevant parts of 124 and 55?

Are you too busy correcting the math and physics error when you can up with an erroneous 11.2 g, when it just takes 1.7 max. Do you need some help?

I understand, as usual you use what other people say, like you salesman for the FDR stuff, and use that hearsay to imply your false conclusions. Like non-conclusions. Got it. That is safe and saves you from being wrong. Good job.

You could use some help with your fight path stuff; I have seen your major errors and can help; or at least suggest you use what Mackey did for you. It is very good and takes into account the worst case you can make up.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

The FDR standard should be easy to post the standard and explain why it has something to do with 9/11. I have been waiting for a complete explanation of what point you are trying to make. But all I get is quotes from an FDR salesman who you taped or something. Good luck, nice post, thank you for posting.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]

Beachy, i know you're an old timer and all, and perhaps you missed the first few thousand times the standard has been posted, but here, i'll post it again...

4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being
generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the
protected memory of the recorder?

L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds,

5: Is the size of this recording delay regulated by industry or just
minimized by good design?

L-3 Response: Regulated per ED-55, Minimum Operational Performance
Specification for Flight Data Recorder Systems.

You refuse to call L3 and/or email them, instead you elect to believe the above is "hearsay". Nor are you able to look up the regs yourself. Got it.

Beachy, do us all a favor and just keep thinking its "hearsay". The rest of us will get on with our work.

Regards