> you would have to realize, it is not feasible for a car to be in location 1 thenbe in location 2 many miles away in a few minutes.

You say that but just last week there was a post here about how LPR claimed that the same car was in two locations in a timeframe that would have required the car to have been traveling non-stop at 160mph for 20 minutes through suburban streets, and even then authorities and proponents were defending it as plausible, or that the LPR was right, but there might just have been timing issues, or, or, or.

i think i saw that post, i think we're both describing what happens when someone copies plates and doppelgangs people to throw off the surveillance.

i think in this case the LPR was right, the same plate number was in two different places, the assumption of how many plates were involved needs review.

160mph for 20min through suburban streets, that kind of attracts attention, there would be a lot of complaints and witnesses if that happened