+1
I’m taking this as further evidence that the video is real. I’ll be keeping my eyes on Tory’s Youtube channel since he hasn’t had any activity since posting the video. The commentors are arguing about this as much as we are (albeit not as eloquently), so I’d be surprised if he didn’t address it in some fashion.
I’ve been following this debate with interest… the main thing I got from watching Mythbusters tonight is that when Matt Cain throws a baseball in an INCREDIBLY casual and effortless looking fashion, without any of the stretching and windup and follow-through that we’re used to seeing when a pitcher pitches, it still goes way way way way faster than the fastest that a reasonably fit individual (Tori) can throw one.
Which tends to tilt things towards plausible for me.
My guess is:
(a) the whole thing was sponsored by that Pizza company, in a fairly casual fashion
(b) they may have somewhat rigged some of the items to get the desired result… possibly moistening the pizza box or taping it closed, possibly shaking up the soda ahead of time
© they may well have taken multiple takes for each object
(d) but when it looked like Matt Cain threw a baseball through a pizza box/soda bottle/pinata/watermelon, that is in fact exactly what happened.
I didn’t see the episode. What kind of speeds was Tori getting?
Where did Snopes do a “meta” example?
Sorry if this is answered in subsequent entries.
I can’t remember the example now, but I think snipes puts out fakes with small indication links that say don’t just trust them because they say so.
Check the article on either ring around the roses, or one about a song that has sailors, or the one about 4&20 blackbirds.
There are a few, but I can’t look noe. Hope that helps.
Could you please give me an exact time which shows how far from the grass the camera is?
Why would you use that one? The one in the northeast corner has a much bigger dirt area.
That the camera is not all that far from home plate.
I’m not sure why you say that. There is a noticeable delay, and it seems the camera is not all that far from home plate.
The question on the table is whether a lag of 40 milliseconds is noticeable. Agreed?
Well the lag for 100 feet is even more noticeable. That’s approximately a tenth of a second lag.
Here’s a little league video where the camera is about 100 feet away. The lag is extremely noticeable.
Agreed?
Let me ask you this: Do you agree that there is an extremely noticeable lag in this video?
I can’t remember why the discussion has moved to the discrepancy between light and sound, but here’s an interesting tidbit from a Scientic American blog:
[INDENT]The 80-millisecond rule plays all sorts of perceptual tricks on us. As long as a hand-clapper is less than 30 meters away, you hear and see the clap happen together. But beyond this distance, the sound arrives more than 80 milliseconds later than the light, and the brain no longer matches sight and sound. What is weird is that the transition is abrupt: by taking a single step away from you, the hand-clapper goes from in sync to out of sync. Similarly, as long as a TV or film soundtrack is synchronized within 80 milliseconds, you won’t notice any lag, but if the delay gets any longer, the two abruptly and maddeningly become disjointed. Events that take place faster than 80 milliseconds fly under the radar of consciousness. A batter swings at a ball before being aware that the pitcher has even throw it.[/INDENT]
It is barely didcenible, but on checking it can be seen that the sound comes approx. 2 frames after the hit.
I think that’s probably true, i.e. that your brain normally corrects these kinds of small discrepancies. It’s sort of like asking people “who are you today” instead of “how are you today” Most people will just hear “how” and answer “fine” But if they are paying more careful attention, they will hear “who” instead of “how.”
Still, it’s possible to hear and observe sound delays of much less than 80 milliseconds if you are paying attention.
Check out this video:
It takes the moving horizontal bar approximately 10 milliseconds to move from 1 tick mark to the next. It’s pretty easy to estimate within +/- one tick mark where the bar is when you hear the sound signal. So if the sound signal started coming 10 or 20 milliseconds later, it would be pretty easy to discern.
Oops, it actually takes 50 milliseconds (approximately) for the horizontal bar to move from one tick mark to the next. Still, if you are off by one tick mark you could notice it pretty easily.
It’s fake. If it’s not, then what’s this?
A number of things bothered me. One is the fake acting. OK, so fake acting isn’t faking the facts, but still.
The first thing that bothered me was the girl picking up the box. I used to be a magician, and you recognize plants when you see one. She picks up the pizza with the hole in the corner. This allows the holes to line up. (And explains why the hole is made in the corner.)
The white stuff exploding out of the box in air and getting dumped on the ground. Hummm.
Of course, they don’t use the same boxes for the various shots. So, I wondered if they may have switched boxes for the hole and the one with the pizza.
Which got me looking for when the box could have gotten switched. Fortunately, the guy was rushing and got caught in one of the fields, which I liked to above.
Yeah, I don’t doubt that. The blog post mostly dealt with trying to match up things that your brain believed should match up.
What I do find odd is your confusion about which ball diamond the test took place at. (…and thanks for identifying the place.) Here’s the Google map of the Moscone recreation center. The Mythbusters video was clearly shot at the northwest diamond. The bleachers in the background make it absolutely certain.
The smaller diamonds in the satellite image are presumably softball fields. Softball uses varying base path lengths for different levels of play-- but always smaller than high school baseball–, and different pitching distances. That would explain the smaller dimensions and the oblong pitching areas. The relatively larger infield dirt allow larger and smaller diamonds.
Pardon me if this issue was already covered.
This is pretty damning. Nice work.
“Extremely noticeable”? I don’t know. I watched it four or five times and, I guess, it looks like there is some lag, but I would not have noticed it were it not pointed out. And, like I said, I’m used to Youtube videos audio & video not being completely in sync, so that wouldn’t prove anything to me.
I agree it’s more likely the northwest diamond (assuming that’s the correct park), but none of the bleachers look exactly right to me. I originally thought it was the northeast diamond because of the locations of the lights.
Nice work indeed. Barring more evidence, I’ve come over to the “fake” camp. The blonde girl picking up the box and seeming to peer through it does look like a plant. And it does look like the boxes were changed.
I think its real. The pitcher was there anyhow with the throwing a dart through glass myth. I’m guessing he was asked to meet those kids and put on a quick show. He seems like a really nice guy.
It would be disastrous for the mythbusters to get caught faking anything. Their show depends on the credibility of its team members. Kerri for example did the mentos and Coke gag for a magazine modeling shoot long before mythbusters did anything with it.
Do baseball pitchers practice by throwing through tires like quarterbacks? A pizza box isn’t much smaller than a tire.
There’s a very small, barely noticeable amount of lag. You were talking about how our brains play tricks on us. Judging by the fact that no one seems to agree with you on this (at least not yet), I’d say that you’re convincing yourself of lag that isn’t there. Either that or your video is stuttering, causing you to find a lag no one else is.
Do you mean the slight overlap of white over gray caused by the blur of the moving camera? There’s the same blur of tan dirt over Kari’s green sweater, etc. Can you point exactly what you think is suspect?
When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. She picked up the closest part of the box to her and instinctively went for the part with the hole in it. Why should she care about the rest of the untouched box? She’s seen that before, but not a box with a giant hole through it. I think that I’d probably do the same in her position.
This was addressed earlier in the thread (and I think in the metafilter discussion as well). It’s Parmesan cheese in a little take out container.
This is very suspect, but can be explained by the angle. In the first shot, the sauce is on the outside, not inside of the box. The angle covers up much of the interior of the shot, so it doesn’t really show us anything at all. We can’t see the sauce in the second shot because it’s on the other side of that cardboard.
If you can find a frame that clearly shows sauce on the inside of the box where the second shot shows dry cardboard, you’ll probably win me over to the “fake” side.
ETA: And the camera cuts away before showing them open the box. If they have a fake box, why wouldn’t they use the plant in both shots? Why have two fake boxes? Just to mess with us?