What Do Five Men Reveal About Their Time at Area 51?

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-03/45879002.jpg

Area 51. It's the most famous military institution in the world that doesn't officially exist. If it did, it would be found about 100 miles outside Las Vegas in Nevada's high desert, tucked between an Air Force base and an abandoned nuclear testing ground. Then again, maybe not— the U.S. government refuses to say. You can't drive anywhere close to it, and until recently, the airspace overhead was restricted—all the way to outer space. Any mention of Area 51 gets redacted from official documents, even those that have been declassified for decades.

...The problem is the myths of Area 51 are hard to dispute if no one can speak on the record about what actually happened there. Well, now, for the first time, someone is ready to talk—in fact, five men are, and their stories rival the most outrageous of rumors. Colonel Hugh "Slip" Slater, 87, was commander of the Area 51 base in the 1960s. Edward Lovick, 90, featured in "What Plane?" in LA's March issue, spent three decades radar testing some of the world's most famous aircraft (including the U-2, the A-12 OXCART and the F-117). Kenneth Collins, 80, a CIA experimental test pilot, was given the silver star. Thornton "T.D." Barnes, 72, was an Area 51 special-projects engineer. And Harry Martin, 77, was one of the men in charge of the base's half-million-gallon monthly supply of spy-plane fuels. Here are a few of their best stories—for the record:...

http://www.latimes.com/features/la-mag-april052009-backstory,0,3355162.story

 

[waht]

Interesting photograph. Wonder what parts these trucks were transporting

 

[zoobyshoe]

And the quintessential Area 51 conspiracy—that the Pentagon keeps captured alien spacecraft there, which they fly around in restricted airspace? Turns out that one's pretty easy to debunk. The shape of OXCART was unprece-dented, with its wide, disk-like fuselage designed to carry vast quantities of fuel. Commercial pilots cruising over Nevada at dusk would look up and see the bottom of OXCART whiz by at 2,000-plus mph. The aircraft's tita-nium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the sun's rays in a way that could make anyone think, UFO.

Disk-like fuselage. 2000 plus mph. Are there images of this craft anywhere, Ivan?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Disk-like fuselage. 2000 plus mph. Are there images of this craft anywhere, Ivan?

You know as much about it as I do; in fact more because I haven't read the article yet. Being that it's the LA Times, I just posted it.

 

[junglebeast]

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/b2_ocean.jpg

This blog shows the evolution of the design, probably many of these planes were tested there are area 51...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/10/oxcart-a-new-cia-history-of-th.html

 

[junglebeast]

Also look at the A-12A Avenger..

http://www.ausairpower.net/000-A-12A-USN-3.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/A-12A-Avenger-Ventral-1.jpg

Yeah...looks kinda like a flying saucer. Case closed :p

 

[zoobyshoe]

This blog shows the evolution of the design, probably many of these planes were tested there are area 51...

Those pics exaggerate the disk-likeness of the fuselage. I googled more images and got this:

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/OXCART_aircraft_on_the_ramp_at_Groom_Lake_Area_51_in_1964._There_are_ten_aircraft_in_the_photo__the_first_eight_are_OXCART_machines__and_the_last_two_are_Air_Force_YF-12As.jpg

The flying triangles are more convincing as UFO report generators.

 

[Stratosphere]

On the Wiki article for area 51 there is a picture that says "Photography Prohibited" apparently someone must have not listened to that rule.

 

[junglebeast]

On the Wiki article for area 51 there is a picture that says "Photography Prohibited" apparently someone must have not listened to that rule.

I just don't understand why the government allows detailed satellite imagery of area 51 and all of the other military facilities on google maps!

 

[mgb_phys]

I just don't understand why the government allows detailed satellite imagery of area 51 and all of the other military facilities on google maps!

1, The satellites are French
2, anybody capable of learning anything from the pictures have their own satellites
3, It's a conspiracy to distract you from all the secret stuff they store at Area 52

 

[russ_watters]

Just in case you guys didn't totally get it, to clarify, "Oxcart" was the codename for the replacement for the U-2. The A-11 was the 11th design revision. The final design revision was A-12, which was then later given the designation... RS-71. Due to a typo and an incorrect announcement, the designation was later changed to SR-71.

A lot of that is in the CIA link...

 

[russ_watters]

Those pics exaggerate the disk-likeness of the fuselage. I googled more images and got this:

The flying triangles are more convincing as UFO report generators.

Whether you see a flying triangle or disk may depend on the viewing angle and sun angle. Note that while the wings are relatively flat, the fuselage is curved and might not reflect light well if illuminated from below.

 

[junglebeast]

1, The satellites are French
2, anybody capable of learning anything from the pictures have their own satellites
3, It's a conspiracy to distract you from all the secret stuff they store at Area 52

1. A foreign ally like France is not going to publicize top secret US military intelligence information. Even if such an event were to occur against the wishes of the US, Google is a US company subject to US laws and they can't publicize top secret US military intelligence without getting in a load of trouble either. So if the satellites are French, that makes no difference.. the fact that they are up there on Google means that it's perfectly OK with the US military, and that's the surprising thing...

2. Anyone with a pair of eyes can learn something from an image! But these aren't just "any images," they are already geo-registered and in many cases detailed enough to show precise locations used to store airplanes, nuclear submarines, etc. Anyone who wanted to launch a "pearl harbor" style attack could just be silently taking all this into account. In addition, knowing the building layout could be very useful in plotting any kind of attack...whether it be infiltration/theft/espionage.

I don't think that the citizens would be incredibly offended if the government mandated that all militarized regions be completely blacked out on Google maps -- in fact considering the highly militaristic post-911-paranoid attitude that is prevalent, I think this would be comforting to a lot of people. There's just no reason to take that sort of risks with a nations security.

By your logic, the government might as well just declassify everything, on the grounds that any worth opponent has probably infiltrated their deepest ranks with spies already. The reality is, that's easier said than done. I doubt that every would-be terrorist organization owns their own satellites taking high quality images over US military zones (and there is a lot of mathematical image processing that needs to be done to geo-register those images as well), and by giving away this kind of information as freebies, it could be enabling them.

3. If this last bullet point is any indication that you weren't being entirely serious with the first 2 points, then let my responses to the first two be an indication that your humor slipped entirely under my radar!

 

[Ms Music]

Junglebeast, what a great pic of the B2!

But that bomber was not built or tested at Area 51. The testing flight path may have taken it over Area 51, but that was classified information. From what I know, it was tested over the Calif desert. I used to work on that program, and when ever I got the call saying a plane had just landed from a test flight, I always wondered how many UFO sightings had been reported over the last two hours... :D

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whether you see a flying triangle or disk may depend on the viewing angle and sun angle. Note that while the wings are relatively flat, the fuselage is curved and might not reflect light well if illuminated from below.

I suppose as long as the shape you see is unconventional and going by at 2000 mph you'll be unsettled.

 

[f95toli]

But these aren't just "any images," they are already geo-registered and in many cases detailed enough to show precise locations used to store airplanes, nuclear submarines, etc.

The satellites in question are using technology that is ancient compared to the kind of technology that is used in modern military/intelligence satellites.
There are LOTS of spy satellites in orbit that can take images with much better quality than anything published by Google. This has been the true for a long time now meaning everyone has adapted to it.
You can therefore be sure that if something can be seen on the Google maps it is either because it is not secret, or someone wants it to be seen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I suppose as long as the shape you see is unconventional and going by at 2000 mph you'll be unsettled.

If it was going 2000 mph and close enough for observers to make out the shape, you would never see it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If it was going 2000 mph and close enough for observers to make out the shape, you would never see it.

How close would it have to be to make out a shape (as discussed by Russ)?

 

[russ_watters]

You'd probably be disappointed with spy satellite photos. The atmosphere makes it very difficult to get much better resolution than what you see in Googlel Earth. They aren't reading license plates from space.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How close would it have to be to make out a shape (as discussed by Russ)?

One would have to get into the resolution of vision, but it's a moot point because anything going that fast would be at a very high altitude.

 

[turbo]

You'd probably be disappointed with spy satellite photos. The atmosphere makes it very difficult to get much better resolution than what you see in Googlel Earth. They aren't reading license plates from space.

We might all be surprised. When I went back to college a bit in the mid-70's to take some courses specific to where I "thought" my career was headed, I took a course in photogrammetry and map-making, and the instructor (who had worked for a time in image analysis) passed around some de-classified images that were probably already a decade or more old. The images were of a Soviet defense plant, and it was very easy to tell how many men vs women were heading to work that morning, and not just because of the coloration of babushkas worn by the women. In over 30 years of further development, with advances in adaptive optics and image enhancement, it's pretty certain that the capabilities of our spy satellites have improved. Anybody that thinks that the outward-looking Hubble ST is the most advanced optical instrument in orbit is probably not working from this kind of perspective.

 

[mgb_phys]

In over 30 years of further development, with advances in adaptive optics and image enhancement, it's pretty certain that the capabilities of our spy satellites have improved. Anybody that thinks that the outward-looking Hubble ST is the most advanced optical instrument in orbit is probably not working from this kind of perspective.

Adaptive optics doesn't help as much but image enhancement does.
Looking down through an atmosphere phase screen near the object is much easier than looking up through one near the telescope.
It's like looking through frosted bathroom window by putting your eye upto the glass compared to pressing the body upto the glass and looking at it from a distance

 

[zoobyshoe]

One would have to get into the resolution of vision, but it's a moot point because anything going that fast would be at a very high altitude.

The reason I'm asking is because of this line from the article:

Commercial pilots cruising over Nevada at dusk would look up and see the bottom of OXCART whiz by at 2,000-plus mph. The aircraft's tita-nium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the sun's rays in a way that could make anyone think, UFO.

 

[russ_watters]

It is tough to tell, but not inconceivable a commercial pilot flying in the same direction could get a decent look at an SR-71, for 30 seconds or so (12 miles of motion at a 1500 mph separation rate), from a (vertical) distance of 5 miles or so.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is tough to tell, but not inconceivable a commercial pilot flying in the same direction could get a decent look at an SR-71, for 30 seconds or so (12 miles of motion at a 1500 mph separation rate), from a (vertical) distance of 5 miles or so.

The lighting, I think, is critical to visibility: how well it reflects the sunlight.

George Gamow asserts, in one of his popular books on physics, that the relativistic effect of length contraction could never be discerned with the naked eye for the same reasons that you can't see bullets in motion. I posted that once, and a clever respondent pointed out that tracer rounds are perfectly visible. Indeed, we've all seen actual footage of them in WW II air battle documentary films.

The visibility or invisibility of fast moving objects is the result of many parameters. (The fascination and dazzle of SR results from statements about what observers would see. Tracer bullets aside (they're fast, but nothing close to relativistic speeds) I doubt any relativistic effect could ever be seen with the naked eye, and this fact considerably squelches any excitement or uproar people feel upon first being introduced to the subject.)

Anyway, if we suppose it to be a good reflector this craft would represent a gigantic tracer bullet, and would present quite an amazing and bewildering appearance.

 

[turbo]

It's not just tracer bullets. An old fellow that lived near me years back had a revolver that could fire .45 ACP rounds with the use of half-moon clips that held 3 rounds each. We would often toss plastic jugs out onto the snowy field across from his house and see how many times we could hit them and keep them moving. It is certainly possible to see those .45 bullets against the white snow background, if you are the one doing the shooting. Once you get used to that little trick, the use of sights was a hindrance to rapid-fire.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's not just tracer bullets. And old fellow that lived near me years back had a revolver that could fire .45 ACP rounds with the use of half-moon clips that held 3 rounds each. We would often toss plastic jugs out onto the snowy field across from his house and see how many times we could hit them and keep them moving. It is certainly possible to see those .45 bullets against the white snow background, if you are the one doing the shooting. Once you get used to that little trick, the use of sights was a hindrance to rapid-fire.

Great story! I'd never heard of this, but it makes sense given the contrasting background behind the bullet. My instinct is that the angle of the bullet path to the viewer is also a big factor in its visibility. Could one see these bullets were they crossing from right to left in front of the observer under these conditions? I tend to doubt it.

 

[turbo]

Great story! I'd never heard of this, but it makes sense given the contrasting background behind the bullet. My instinct is that the angle of the bullet path to the viewer is also a big factor in its visibility. Could one see these bullets were they crossing from right to left in front of the observer under these conditions? I tend to doubt it.

If you stood in back of the shooter, you could make out the bullet, but looking on from the side, no. The trick is that you are looking along the line of flight of the bullet, and it doesn't change position very quickly from that POV. Factor in the contrast and the large size of a .45 slug PLUS the sharper visual acuity that you get from constricted pupils looking at an object on well-lit snow, and you've got pretty ideal conditions.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you stood in back of the shooter, you could make out the bullet, but looking on from the side, no. The trick is that you are looking along the line of flight of the bullet, and it doesn't change position very quickly from that POV. Factor in the contrast and the large size of a .45 slug PLUS the sharper visual acuity that you get from constricted pupils looking at an object on well-lit snow, and you've got pretty ideal conditions.

Excellent point about the constricted pupils: like a high f-stop: great depth of field.

The contrast between a glowing tracer and the background is probably quite a bit higher than the 45 and snow. I wonder to what extent this increases it's visibility on angles of view closer and closer to 90 degrees to the flight path, and to what extent the reflected sun off an OXCART resembles the contrast between tracer and background.

 

[Anticitizen]

We might all be surprised. When I went back to college a bit in the mid-70's to take some courses specific to where I "thought" my career was headed, I took a course in photogrammetry and map-making, and the instructor (who had worked for a time in image analysis) passed around some de-classified images that were probably already a decade or more old. The images were of a Soviet defense plant, and it was very easy to tell how many men vs women were heading to work that morning, and not just because of the coloration of babushkas worn by the women. In over 30 years of further development, with advances in adaptive optics and image enhancement, it's pretty certain that the capabilities of our spy satellites have improved. Anybody that thinks that the outward-looking Hubble ST is the most advanced optical instrument in orbit is probably not working from this kind of perspective.

You sure the photos weren't taken by a spy plane? (I only recently found out that the high-res close ups in Google Maps were taken by planes, not satellites.)

 

[Chronos]

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/02/b2_ocean.jpg

This blog shows the evolution of the design, probably many of these planes were tested there are area 51...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/10/oxcart-a-new-cia-history-of-th.html

Apologies, but, those images are obviously fake.

 

[junglebeast]

The visibility or invisibility of fast moving objects is the result of many parameters. (The fascination and dazzle of SR results from statements about what observers would see. Tracer bullets aside (they're fast, but nothing close to relativistic speeds) I doubt any relativistic effect could ever be seen with the naked eye, and this fact considerably squelches any excitement or uproar people feel upon first being introduced to the subject.)

1) What makes you think that fast objects would be difficult to see? It's not true. All that matters is the apparent velocity (as projected onto the retina). If an object is moving along an eye-ray, it can be going mach 20 and still have apparent motion of zero. Also, the apparent size of an object is proportional to 1 over distance, meaning that a very large distant object may appear to have constant size even when moving very quickly towards or away from the viewer.

2) A bullet is not necessarily a good example of a fast moving object anyway. The muzzle velocity of a bullet may be in the 3000-4000 fps range, but drag forces slow that down considerably before it reaches the end of it's flight path.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The frame rate equivalent of the eye is what, something like 30 per second? If speed didn't matter, we couldn't stand to watch our TVs or computer screens.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1) What makes you think that fast objects would be difficult to see? It's not true.

Experience. I have fired a gun quite a few times and never seen the bullet. I've had much larger things pass in front of me that appeared only as a blur of motion.

All that matters is the apparent velocity (as projected onto the retina). If an object is moving along an eye-ray, it can be going mach 20 and still have apparent motion of zero. Also, the apparent size of an object is proportional to 1 over distance, meaning that a large object (which is visible from far away) may appear to have constant size even when moving very quickly towards or away from the viewer.

Which Turbo pointed out with his story. But it's the path at 90 degrees to that where visibility deteriorates with increasing speeds at any given distance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The frame rate equivalent of the eye is what, something like 30 per second? If speed didn't matter, we couldn't stand to watch our TVs or computer screens.

The brain samples the visual field at some limited fps, yes, so anything crossing your field of vision faster than that is invisible.

 

[junglebeast]

But it's the path at 90 degrees to that where visibility deteriorates with increasing speeds at any given distance.

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion...which is that some people doubt the realism of this claim:

Commercial pilots cruising over Nevada at dusk would look up and see the bottom of OXCART whiz by at 2,000-plus mph. The aircraft's tita-nium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the sun's rays in a way that could make anyone think, UFO.

And the only thing necessary to prove for this claim to be realistic is that an object moving overhead starting from a great distance would be visible..which is exactly the situation in which it would be visible.

The brain samples the visual field at some limited fps, yes, so anything crossing your field of vision faster than that is invisible.

That's false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When an image strikes the retina the nerve impulses last approximately
1/25 sec. This is why motion pictures appear to move continuously, even
though the number of frames/sec. is not extremely fast. This is also why a
TV screen does not flicker. If you have seen some "old time movies" from the
20's and 30's they appear "jerky" because at the time the technology did not
allow for frames to appear quickly enough to "fool" the eye, and the eye was
able to resolve successive frames.

http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01025.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion...

It's completely relevant to your quetion: why do I think a fast moving object would be difficult to see. That is all it was intended to address.

I already made a convincing case for the OXCART being visible.

That's false.

Well, don't just sit there. Substantiate your counter claim.

 

[junglebeast]

The brain samples the visual field at some limited fps, yes, so anything crossing your field of vision faster than that is invisible.

Unlike a digital camera that captures a fixed number of frames per second the eye is composed of millions of light receptive neurons (about 120 million rods and 7 million cones). If we estimate that each has an independent refractory period of 16-20 msec then by my calculations we might estimate the overall frequency of information sampling to be roughly 7 GHz (that is 127m / 18 msec). Now... this number isn't actually all that meaningful because refractory period probably has some spatial correlations, and because a completely new image isn't formed at that rate...still it is quite a high number.

For the purposes of simplifying the discussion, I'll just go along and pretend that the entire image is sampled at some fixed frequency "f" samples/sec. If the width of your visual field is "w" meters then your claim (written mathematically) is that an object having an apparent velocity greater than "w/f" meters/sec is invisible. It is not true that this condition means the object is invisible. It merely restricts the number of sampled images of the object to 1, assuming a fixed eye position -- in other words, no matter how fast it's moving, it can never be moving so fast that you don't get at least one image of it.

In reality, a fixed eye position is also unreasonable...because the eye is continuously making saccades toward "interesting" features such as moving objects. Even when fixating at a stationary target the eye continuously and unconsciously makes micro saccades that allow it to do super-resolution (the same kind of super-resolution that allows, for example, the resolution of a satellite image to be increased...or efficient coding for streaming video).

The truth is, fundamentally, I do agree with you...it's possible that an object be moving so fast that you don't perceive it, or what you do perceive is filtered out by your brain as being noise. But this doesn't mean that you can't get a glimpse or a bullet or a plane or whatever, which I think is what you were trying to argue...ah, maybe I don't know what your actual point was at all...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Unlike a digital camera that captures a fixed number of frames per second the eye is composed of millions of light receptive neurons (about 120 million rods and 7 million cones). If we estimate that each has an independent refractory period of 16-20 msec then by my calculations we might estimate the overall frequency of information sampling to be roughly 7 GHz (that is 127m / 18 msec). Now... this number isn't actually all that meaningful because refractory period probably has some spatial correlations, and because a completely new image isn't formed at that rate...still it is quite a high number.

For the purposes of simplifying the discussion, I'll just go along and pretend that the entire image is sampled at some fixed frequency "f" samples/sec. If the width of your visual field is "w" meters then your claim (written mathematically) is that an object having an apparent velocity greater than "w/f" meters/sec is invisible. It is not true that this condition means the object is invisible. It merely restricts the number of sampled images of the object to 1, assuming a fixed eye position -- in other words, no matter how fast it's moving, it can never be moving so fast that you don't get at least one image of it.

In reality, a fixed eye position is also unreasonable...because the eye is continuously making saccades toward "interesting" features such as moving objects. Even when fixating at a stationary target the eye continuously and unconsciously makes micro saccades that allow it to do super-resolution (the same kind of super-resolution that allows, for example, the resolution of a satellite image to be increased...or efficient coding for streaming video).

The truth is, fundamentally, I do agree with you...it's possible that an object be moving so fast that you don't perceive it, or what you do perceive is filtered out by your brain as being noise. But this doesn't mean that you can't get a glimpse or a bullet or a plane or whatever, which I think is what you were trying to argue...ah, maybe I don't know what your actual point was at all...

The eyes may be sending virtually continuous info to the brain but the whole cerebral cortex is activated by the thalamus, all of whose cells electrically oscillate at a frequency of 40 times a second, in synchrony. Interruptions of the thalamo-cortical complex result in unconsciousness, which is the cause of unconsciousness when someone is "knocked out", or during an "absence' seizure. The oscillation of the thalamus, therefore, represents some form of oscillation of consciousness itself at that frequency.

My point was simply that there is nothing impossible about the concept of something moving too fast to see. I think the OXCART is probably visible, in any case.

 

[junglebeast]

The eyes may be sending virtually continuous info to the brain but the whole cerebral cortex is activated by the thalamus, all of whose cells electrically oscillate at a frequency of 40 times a second, in synchrony. Interruptions of the thalamo-cortical complex result in unconsciousness, which is the cause of unconsciousness when someone is "knocked out", or during an "absence' seizure. The oscillation of the thalamus, therefore, represents some form of oscillation of consciousness itself at that frequency

That's an interesting point which I was not aware of. However, one might argue that the brain could still compute visual processing and store the results during the unconscious phase, which could then be presented to the consciousness at the next "tick", so to speak ;)

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's an interesting point which I was not aware of. However, one might argue that the brain could still compute visual processing and store the results during the unconscious phase, which could then be presented to the consciousness at the next "tick", so to speak ;)

Possibly, but my guess is that the brain wants discontinuity between samples in order to perform a differential analysis somehow. That's my own speculation on how this relates to the binding problem.

This interview is pretty interesting and talks about the binding problem, one of the big current neurological mysteries:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/electric2.html

It also describes how changes and disruptions in thalamo-cortical rhythms have very large effects on perception and consciousness.

 

[junglebeast]

NOVA: Is the binding, this rhythm, where consciousness comes from?

Llinás: Yes. Binding allows the different parts to be transformed into one cognitive experience.

There's a big difference between combining different pathways together and endowing an organism with a consciousness. I don't see this so called "binding problem" as a very fundamental question

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's not get into more mind/brain analysis than is appropriate for the thread.

 

[turbo]

Let's not get into more mind/brain analysis than is appropriate for the thread.

Really. Unexpected things can be mistakenly "ID'd" if for no other reason that the observer is trying to reconcile some odd observation with his/her experience and expectations. Before stealth technology was finally acknowledged publicly, would it have been odd to see a very fast flying object clearly, and not have a radar-signature? Yes, but we know now that there is a reason why that could be so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Really. Unexpected things can be mistakenly "ID'd" if for no other reason that the observer is trying to reconcile some odd observation with his/her experience and expectations. Before stealth technology was finally acknowledged publicly, would it have been odd to see a very fast flying object clearly, and not have a radar-signature? Yes, but we know now that there is a reason why that could be so.

One thing that often makes me chuckle is when the debunkers claim that report X is bogus because nothing was seen on RADAR. These guys really need to get a grip.

I wonder how many people have been accused of being crackpots because they saw, and reported a stealth aircraft as a UFO.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Let's not get into more mind/brain analysis than is appropriate for the thread.

Let me just redirect him to the appropriate material and I'll get back on topic.

There's a big difference between combining different pathways together and endowing an organism with a consciousness. I don't see this so called "binding problem" as a very fundamental question

Llinas has answered the interviewer's question, unfortunately, at a different level than that on which it was asked. Binding doesn't actually explain the phenomenon of consciousness. It explains why qualia are what they are. The importance of binding can't be appreciated until you find out what happens when it breaks down: agnosia.

A really good introduction to the phenomenon of agnosia is the title story in Oliver Sack's book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. (It's an extremely popular book, likely to be found at any used bookstore, library, or on Amazon.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the topic of visibility and speed: signals from the eye are first sent to the thalamus which encodes them in some way shape or form before they are sent to the visual cortex. This actually happens to nearly all sensory input: the thalamus is a sort of Grand Central Station: you can't get onto Manhattan by train without first stopping and reconnecting with a different train at Grand Central. If you're interested you can google how thalamic cells respond to sensory input by either tonic, or burst fire, signals to the appropriate area of cortex. It's not a one-to-one correspondence: they collect a certain amount of stimulation before they fire, either tonically, or in bursts, sending that signal to the cortex. A bullet passing in front of you from one side to the other probably doesn't send enough information to a thalamic cell to get it over the threshold to fire. It may not even send enough information to tip a rod or cone over the threshold.