There is no bare assertion in what you quoted. There is a speculation, and the speculation is even given some support–while at the same time being upfront about being mere speculation. It is a pointing out of a plausible possibility. None of that constitutes a bare assertion.
A bare assertion would have been something like: “The guy who threw the ball picked up the pizza box and turned it before putting it back down.” But that’s not what I said.
How about something like “I bet Kari and Tory’s Mythbusters contract doesn’t even allow them to make exaggerated claims on the internet!”?
I said, “but more seriously…” after the gravity comment. Pitching from a mound gives you a) a secured rubber to pitch off of and b) an incline on which to extend your stride (and throwing motion).
“I wouldn’t be surprised if…” marks a statement as a speculation, not a bare assertion. It marks the statement as intended to say something about the state of mind of the speaker.
Indeed, it doesn’t even claim that the thing said is probable–merely that it’s not so improbable as to make it surprising if true.
Do you disagree? Do you think I should be surprised in such a case? Do you think it would be surprising if something like that were in their contract with Mythbusters?
I think maybe you don’t know what a “bare assertion” is. Granted, I didn’t define the term, and I suppose it could be used in a few different ways. But I expected the context to make my meaning clear–a “bare assertion” is an assertion for which some support or evidence is, in context, required–but where that support or evidence has not been provided.
Nothing of mine you’ve quoted or paraphrased satisfies that definition. I’ve reviewed my posts, and noted that you will not find any examples in them–not in this thread anyway. My criticism does not apply to anything I’ve said in this thread. Do you have a whole lot of respect for me now? Have I passed the test of character?
You’re clearly putting “I bet it’s against their contract” forward as an assertion that the video must not be fake. If you’d like to deny that - fine, go for it. But if you’re not - then why even bring it up? “I bet Kari’s real hair color isn’t even red!” Now that’s speculation that doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the video.
I do somewhat like this idea. It is suspicious that in every instance except the watermelon, his pitching hand is off camera. The watermelon one may just be real.
These are bare assertions. The pizza box is lobbed into the air in plain view, yet you arrogantly assert it cannot be done, apparently because it looks too easy. You also boldly state as fact that it cannot possibly land the way it did. Why not? Simply because you say so?
Regarding the pinata, don’t you think it might depend on how this particular pinata was constructed as to its durability? To assert this the way you have, one might assume you at least think you know a lot about pinatas. Why not fill the rest of us in then concerning what you think you know about the construction of pinatas and especially this particular pinata?:rolleyes:
You’re confirming that you’re not cottoning onto what “assertion” means here. I explained it in my prior post–I belive the explanation was sufficient.
I’m merely suggesting that maybe there’s not actually a pizza in there - or there’s something else going on that isn’t as it appears.
Boldly? Whatever you say. I prefaced it with “I bet…” - it’s surprisingly similar to “I wouldn’t be surprised if…”!
Absolutely. And if they’re using some sort of break-away pinata that’s easily snapped in half, I’d question the veracity of the video even more - or at least question the legitimacy of what they’re trying to convey (“Matt Cain destroys things in a way you can’t possibly imagine!!1!”). Why not just use a regular pinata? Maybe because it wouldn’t interact that way with a toss from a baseball?
So then your speculation about Kari and Cory’s Mythbuster contract has nothing to do with this topic. Gotcha.
“No speculations, however plausible, are relevant to the topic of this thread.” You really believe that? Because if you don’t, I can’t make sense of what you just said.
Look man, sometimes you’re wrong. It’s okay.
A lot of people are making bare assertions in this thread–unsupported statements which should be supported. You’re trying to pin the same accusation on me, but you’re failing. I have made no unsupported statements in this thread which should be supported. It’s no big deal that I haven’t done so. It’s not particularly important that I haven’t done so. You’re making this out to be much more important than it is. I’ve successfully defended myself. That part is over. The proper thing for you to do now is to examine your own posts, determine whether my criticism applies, determine whether it matters that it applies, and move on.
Why don’t we just go ahead and drop this tangent. However, it would probably be helpful for the thread at-large if you would just identify the bare assertions that you have an issue with, so that people can either back them up, admit they’re specious, or try to fill in some gaps.
Munch, I’m a stand-up poster, so I will come back in and admit that it would seem I was wrong on a few counts. I directed a question to Alan Nathan, a noted expert on the Physics of Baseball, and his response is below.
For sure, the pitching rubber makes a difference, since the pitcher has
to push off against something. However, that is not the key thing about
the raised mound, since a rubber on flat ground would be just as
effective. But the extra 10" from gravity also plays essentially no
role in the speed of the pitch. So, neither of you are right. The main
reason for a raised mound is that it allows the pitcher to throw the
ball on more of a downward trajectory, which allows him to get greater
speed on the ball. One reason for that is that he has to release the
ball later in the delivery, so that the force applied to his hand by the
rest of the body acts over a longer distance and therefore acquires more
kinetic energy (so, higher velocity).
I hope you find this response useful.
Best wishes,
Alan Nathan
So, in summary a pitcher on a mound will be able to generate more pitch speed, not because of the pitching rubber (which I proposed), nor gravity (which you somewhat offhandedly proposed), but rather because the pitcher is able to extend the pitching motion and therefore apply more force to the ball.
Overall, you were closer to the mark than I was.
Still does not really address this thread, but I needed to finish that tangent. 
Nice research, leftfield! Any chance you referred him to the video to get his thoughts on it?
Yep. I gotta agree. The pizza box didn’t show any recoil when it was hit. It should have at least flipped or moved somehow as a reaction to the ball striking it.
No, considering he doesn’t know me from Adam, I’m amazed he took the time to respond at all, so I didn’t belabor the point.
It’s probably worth noting that Kari and Tori work for a shop that specializes in mechanical special effects. Seems to me that if they were going to fake something, they’d do it old school, not CGI.
The actual impact with the pop bottle/first object was unclear but the watermelon impact was not. When the ball strikes the melon the damage can be seen. With that kind of velocity, a ball hitting the pizza box (with pizza inside) would definitely punch a hole right through it, as is shown. The ball’s rounded shape means that the impact is concentrated into a small surface area when first striking - much less surface area than the overall size of the ball. The rounded shape would also aid in the hole punching, peeling back the cardboard.
In addition, the slight rotation of the box (combined with the weight of pizza inside) creates centrifugal force, and even if slight would aid in stabilizing the box against recoil.
The box recoils very little due to the very fact that the ball is so efficiently punching through. So for what some are seeing as suspicious - the box not recoiling - only emphases the authenticity, at least in my opinion. It should be obvious that if indeed the ball can punch so cleanly through, there would be little or no recoil of the box.
As far as this being a clever advertizement of some sort, the name of the pizza place can hardly be seen on the box in this video. One has to really be looking for it, trying to find out what it is when watching the video. It makes no sense that it’s an ad and makes no sense that it’s faked from several standpoints.
As has been mentioned, each stunt is filmed in one continuous shot, only one camera involved in the takes. So from the way it’s shot, to alter the video would not only require more bells-and-whistles than this is worth, but even more important to consider - for the people making this video - since they have a daytime job of essentially debunking things. Faking any of this would discredit them, lend pessimism to all the work they have done and all the work they might do in the future. That this was not a formally sanctioned mythbusting video does not matter. Think what it would do to these people’s reputations as mythbusters to fake something like this.
As far as the box being in a different position than when it first lands, I think the best explanation for that is an occam’s razor one, that the person who tossed the box had walked over to it, moved it, perhaps by starting to pick it up but then abandoned this attempt, stepped back away from the box.
And what kind of velocity is that? 70 mph? 80?
I’ll send $10 to anyone who can send me a video of them throwing a *knife *through a pizza box (with pizza). $5 if you want to save money and just throw it through the box without the pizza. I’d imagine the increase in pressure at impact due to it being a knife will more than make up for you not being Matt Cain.
Welcome to viral marketing. It’s my understanding that Patxi’s is a pretty prominent pizza place in San Francisco, and has a very well-established relationship with Matt Cain.
This argument is less and less convincing the more it’s repeated. Kari and Tory don’t get paid to debunk things - they get paid to blow shit up. (And more and more, they get paid to manufacture myths that they can then debunk, since they’ve long ago run out of urban legends.) Besides, I can’t imagine anyone losing faith in the important upstanding work that Mythbusters does (of blowing shit up in increasingly entertaining, outlandish and manufactured ways) just because of a local promo piece.
To get a ball up to 80 mph (which is a highly unlikely estimate of how fast Cain can throw a ball 20-45 degrees into the air, off the balls of his feet, not off a rubber or a mound, and without a stretch), you need to drop it 214 feet. Anyone have access to a 214 ft balcony? We’d just need 164 feet for 70 mph.
I don’t buy the pitching machine theory. When the watermelon is thrown, his hand is in the shot and you can actually see the ball leave his hand. The ball also gets stuck in the watermelon and when the melon hits the ground the ball rolls away. If anyone examines it, there is what appears to be a baseball pre-stuck in the melon, but I think that’s just a label stuck to it.
The pizza box does move after it hits. You can watch the label land face down and after they cut away it is face up and the hole has moved to the opposite side. It seems likely that it was flipped to show the pizza brand, although the little girl picks it up so quickly that it’s not really seen. It also seems to be the same box. If they went to the trouble of switching boxes, they shouldn’t have put the hole in the exact same spot because once it was flipped, the hole moves and arouses suspicion.
So why flip the box to show the label? It could be a viral video for the pizza chain, or maybe he simply brought free pizzas to his mythbuster visit and they decided to throw one and he told them to make sure to get a shot of the name because they were his sponsors.
Here’s the definitive pizza/pizza box throwing feat: The Pizza on Roof - YouTube