I have just followed from your edit exchange on the article Blu-Ray Disc to find the exchange above.  Sadly, you appear to know little about the subject, and to be fair, it has become confusing because much of the terminology has become abused.

First, European Blu-Ray discs are not produced in 24p format.   That is almost exclusively the preserve of the American regions.  Secondly, the Blu-Ray format does not support the proper 1080 progressive high definition formats (1080/50p and 1080/60p (and I include the 59.95p in that).  This is because the data rate is not fast enough for these formats.  The European sourced discs that state 1080p on the packaging are discs produced from film originated material and is one of the abuses of the term progressive.  The term progressive strictly defines a video format where the lines of video information are recorded in strict numerical order, 

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 ... 1078 - 1079 -1080.  

Alternatively, there is the interlaced format which displays the odd lines ony first (odd field) and then follows them by the even lines (even field). (You probably know this already).

1 - 3 - 5 - 7 ... 1077 - 1079 - 2 - 4 - 6 ... 1078 - 1080

They are actually stored in the digital video frame the other way around due to the digital video format's origins in the NTSC world.  In true video source material, the even field displays a time slice that is 20 milliseconds later than the odd field and the two together give a comlete video frame.  This is also largely true in the Americas, except the even field precedes the odd field by ~16.6 miliiseconds.

There is a largish group of enthusiasts (if that's the right word) who have become somewhat anally retentive over the progressive video formats and who have convinced themselves that progressive is the only way to go.  The reality is that any improvement in the visual perception of the video is marginal at best and certainly not worth the doubling of the required digital data to support it.  But for them, everything has to be progressive.  I shall coin the word 'progressivists' for this discussion.

When film originated material is transferred to video in Europe, the film is run slightly fast by 4% which allows one film frame to occupy both the the odd and even fields of the video frame (known as 2:2 pulldown).  Thus the even field displays a time slice that is 0 milliseconds later than the odd field.  In order to satisfy the progressivists, the Blu-Ray producers state that such material is in 1080p format, but using something called a 'Progressive Segmented Frame' technique (though they don't mention that last bit on the box).  That is: that it is progressive video, but the odd lines have been recorded together and then they are followed by the even lines.  It is really interlaced video, but by the time the display device or the Blu-ray player has de-interlaced the video (it doesn't matter one jot where it actually happens), the result is perceptually indistinguishable from true 1080/25p video (assuming the deinterlacing algorithm works properly).  If watched on a CRT display then, of course, the video will be interlaced as there is no deinterlacing prior to display, but with that number of lines, no one is likely to notice (unless they sit inches away from the screen).  The description 1080p on the box is, technically at least, wrong but percetually the same as 1080/25p video.  The 4% speed up goes completely un-noticed especially these days when the sound is adjusted back to the original pitch - and obviously you hadn't noticed it yourself if you had convinced yourself that you were watching films at the original speed.

Once we cross to the Americas, different problems occur.  Obviously, running the film at 30 frames per second is not an option, so instead, film is converted to video by storing the same film frame on 3 half video frames, followed by storing the next frame on 2 half video frames and then repeating 3 - 2 - 3 - 2.  Thus 4 film frames occupy 5 video frames (the technique is 3:2 pulldown - often wrongly called 2:3 pulldown).  Properly deinterlaced, such material is perfectly watchable and the viewer unlikely to feel anything is wrong.  But the progressivists have decided that it is not the way to watch film material and have even invented faults to justify a move to a progressive format.  I have even seen claims (obviously failing to understand the technique) that movement in the resultant video is uneven in that it jumps 50% further every other jump due to the 3 half fields.  

The result was the 24p format.  The only problem with the 24p format is that if you try to watch it on a CRT display (and A CRT is still unbeatable for contrast and colour reproduction), the result will be unviewable to bad flicker - something that was known as long ag