Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood... Quickly Start Deleting Tweets Of The Evidence

from the careful-what-you-tweet dept

Wed, Dec 7th 2011 12:53pm — Mike Masnick

Well, well. Slashdot points us to this bizarre and slightly scary story about how everyone's favorite TV show, MythBusters, had an experiment that went really, really wrong yesterday. Apparently, it fired a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb disposal range. The idea was to shoot the cannonball into huge water containers.

But they missed.

Instead, the cannonball went hurtling through the suburban northern California town of Dublin, at 4:15, just as kids were getting home from school. According to the SF Chronicle report on this:

The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said.

There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust.

The ball wasn't done bouncing.

It exited the house, leaving a perfectly round hole in the stucco, crossed six-lane Tassajara Road, took out several tiles from the roof of a home on Bellevue Circle and finally slammed into the Gill family's beige Toyota Sienna minivan in a driveway on Springvale Drive.

Wow. Amazingly (and thankfully) no one got hurt in all of this. CBS has some astounding video of the carnage, including showing how the cannoball bounced around that house on Cassata Place putting holes in a bunch of places: But, perhaps equally interesting is that the Mythbusters themselves, appear to have done a little post accident tidying up. After hearing about the whole mess, Jon Laslow went and checked out the various Mythbusters' Twitter feeds and noticed that a bunch of photos of Kari, Grant and Tory posing next to cannons had been deleted. Oops. But, of course, you can't delete anything online... So, the photos & tweets have been preserved:

"Heavy Artillery"

"Canon Envy"

Tory and his Canon Like many folks around here, I'm a big fan of the show, but this seems like quite a mishap.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: accidents, cannonballs, cannons, coverups, mythbusters

140 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SD (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 12:51pm

What a trajectory... This must be what happens when your ballistics education consists entirely of playing Angry Birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MattTheSpratt, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re:
  And plenty of pinball, considering how much bouncing that cannonball did afterwards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They should go back to the ol' Atari 2600 and practice up on Human Cannonball.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  Must of been one of those yellow cannonballs and someone clicked on it mid-flight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - IronM@sk, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    *Must have...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 7:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *Must have...
      
      I stand corrected.
      
      I must have listened to too much J. Geils in my youth and got lost. I don't have to write that on the chalkboard a 100 times, do I?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:24pm
  
  Re:
  I read that comment on Slashdot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2012 @ 8:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    (Or maybe not, I don't see it there, it musta been here that I read it from your comment. Sorry about that).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:07pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:breathe:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's funny because no one got hurt.

I'm assuming their cannon didn't have any rifling. I guess they learned old cannons aren't very accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:08pm

Someone must have known next to nothing about firing cannonballs for the ball to travel so far past the target, while breaking through or bouncing off of so many solid objects that obviously slowed down the ball's momentum some.

Perhaps mythbusters should have done some basic research on what a cannon ball is capable of when fired through a cannon, and how much gun powder one should use when firing a cannon ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re:
  I thought that was what they just did? Can't get more basic than "try it and see"!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travis, 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  It was a test shot to see verify the speed of a cannonball when fired with a normal load. The cannon jumped more than it had in any of their previous uses, and they had used that cannon many times previously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re:
  Someone must have known next to nothing about firing cannonballs
  
  They've fired cannons and cannonballs on at least 5 previous episodes.
  
  They were firing the cannon at a bomb range.
  
  Why the hell do people live close enough to a bomb range for this to happen?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - WysiWyg (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why do they put the bomb range so close to where people live? It didn't sound like it was just some random house, but actually a fullblown town that they hit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 10:41pm
  
  Re:
  According to sfgate, they were aiming at some water barrels and a brick wall.
  
  The article mentioned something about "muzzle lift" which presumably was the reason the cannon ball shot over the momentum-reducing targets.
  
  The mistake, it appears, was in setting the direction of the cannon. From this map, they would of save themselves some amount of trouble by pointing it in a different direction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - IronM@sk, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    They would have...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT, 8 Dec 2011 @ 3:09am
  
  Re:
  You really shouldn't comment about something you know nothing about, like for example a show you obviously don't watch. They've fired canons of different types many, many times.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:08pm

Wow, I really hope they air that. But probably won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  This is the same show that blatantly caved to pressure from the credit card companies when proposing a show about how insecure the new 'RFID' cards really were.
  
  I think it was Adam who at a public forum somewhere was talking to the audience describing the hilarity of how the show got shut down.
  
  Their bosses perp-walked him out the very next day to completely retract what he said because, you know, you can't show people just how insecure the new system is...
  
  So, for ethics and standards I wouldn't expect too much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They didn't cave. The network which airs lots of their commercials caved and said NO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X034R3yzDhw
      
      The Last HOPE, NYC http://www.thelasthope.org/talks.html
      
      full talk by adam savage
      http://www.thelasthope.org/media/audio/64kbps/Featured_Speaker_-_Adam_Savage.mp3
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's partly why we don't need a government that establishes self interested communication monopolies.
        
        Abolish broadcasting and cableco monopolies.
        
        IP extremists argue that their new proposed legislation won't result in censorship. But look around you. Look at most of the communication channels outside the Internet. Censorship is a reality and our laws are the very reason. The FCC et al promised that broadcasting license requirements/monopolies won't result in censorship and that turned out to be false. The end result is censorship. and SOPA et al are no different. What we need to do is abolish the existing laws that result in censorship (ie: broadcasting and cableco monopolies) instead of enacting more laws that will intentionally result in more censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and, btw, this is something Techdirt should run an article on. It's a good example of censorship and what's being censored here is more important for the public to know than what's in the OP.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marty, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:57am
  
  Re:
  I know this is an old-ass post, but a Mythbusters episode with the footage has now aired, complete with misfire and apology.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubberpants, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:08pm

I Love MythBusters
But even I tire of just explosions. Maybe now they'll get back to more interesting myths besides "If We Blow Stuff Up More Do We Gets Higher Ratings? Confirmed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Guy (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re: I Love MythBusters
  They should next test the myth of "If we dress Kari is really skimpy clothing will we get higher ratings?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
    Kari Byron and misfiring cannons... There is a really dirty joke in there somewhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
      You think it's a joke? It's what I hope for every day of my life......
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kevin H (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
        ಠ_ಠ
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - byte^me (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
        I used to think the same thing, then I saw her in person. I was sadly disappointed. :(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
        I used to think the same thing, then I saw her in person. I was sadly disappointed. :(
        
        In what way was she disappointing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        byte^me (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
        Based on what I saw on TV, I thought she was very attractive. In person, I did not. Not sure how to pin it down exactly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
        Based on what I saw on TV, I thought she was very attractive. In person, I did not. Not sure how to pin it down exactly.
        
        Where did you see her? Maybe she didn't have any makeup on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
      I wonder if her kid is the result of a misfiring cannon...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- redwall_hp (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re: I Love MythBusters
  Usually the myths Adam and Jamie do are more interesting, and more thoroughly planned and tested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re: I Love MythBusters
    Actually, lately they are way less interesting...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:12pm

Major booming fun!
Canons are just plain fun! Back in my misspent youth we used to take sections of auto exhaust tubing, weld a base plate on one end, drill a hole near the base plate, and use oxy-acetylene for the propellent. Then we could launch a tennis ball (just right size for tube w/ a shop rag for wadding) about 1/2 a mile! It also made a very satisfying "boom!!"... :-) We figured a tennis ball would do a minimal amount of damage when it landed. Of course, we aimed at an empty corn field as a target. Only rabbits and such to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:17pm

Way back when
Way back before explosive cannon ordinance was invented, field artillery was actually aimed at the ground in front of the enemy troops. The idea was to skip the cannon ball off of the ground and through the enemy troops, killing or maiming as many of them as possible. So, if you want to fire a solid shot cannon ball to do the least damage, aim up into the air so it embeds itself in the ground when it lands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:20pm

Living on the edge
Why is there a populated town within cannon shot of a bomb range anyway? I would think the residents quickly get tired of the noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McCrea (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: Living on the edge
  I'm surprise the bomb range was within even 15 or so miles of residents, let alone just half a mile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dan, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Living on the edge
    Well, it's the county bomb disposal range, that was put in before those neighborhoods were built.
    
    I think "bomb disposal" is a pretty different from "smooth bore cannon firing range," so I expect people weren't too worried about cannonballs plunging into homes. Ultimately, I'd think that the Alameda county bomb squad bears a bit of responsibility for this for allowing a cannon to be fired. The crew of Mythbusters would have been using them as a consultants on what they could and could do out there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Travis, 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Living on the edge
      IIRC, they've shot that cannon there many times before. Pretty sure its the same cannon as they used in the pirate episode.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re: Living on the edge
  Most likely the bomb range was there first. Then developers bought the neighboring land, built on it and rented the properties.
  
  Just like they do around airports and paper mills.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:26pm

Damage in the name of Entertainment
There is a moral to this story. When things go wrong in the Physical world, everyone takes notice. We consider the idea of building a homemade cannon. We want to see it tried.

Then it doesn't quite do what we expected.

It rips through our public spaces, bouncing off hills and roads.

It enters our homes, racing up our stairs.

It blasts through our bedrooms.

It takes out a van.

Now you can expect calls to stop this. It isn't worth the risk to our property, to our homes, to our very bedrooms, to allow this all in the name of Entertainment.

You likely see where I am going now....

... but in the name of Entertainment we are willing to fire off SOPA and PROTECT IP. It has a great chance of ripping through the Internet in just the same fashion. Exposing us to risk in our public dealings, and in our private dealings. But here we believe the risk is acceptable.

Because the blast of SOPA through our bedrooms destroying our privacy and security is all digital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
  Ahhhhhhhh, very clever connection.
  
  Bravo!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
  In rebuttal, who liked to use cannon the most? Pirates. Case closed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
    Actually, I think you'll fins it's them crazy Spanish Main pirates.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
    In rebuttal, who liked to use cannon the most? Pirates. Case closed.
    
    Actually, it was probably the East India Trading Company who used cannons the most. Coincidentally, it was also to preserve their trade monopoly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
      The East India Trading Company were only trying to protect their intellectual property (AKA trade routes). Once again Mike "Pirate-lover" Masnick and his cadre of scurvy dogs is trying to defame a perfectly legitimate enterprise. If Masnick had his way the opium trade would collapse and then no one would have opium anymore. Is that what you want?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
        Are you suggesting that the recording industry wants to provide drugs to the people and we should like this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vancedecker (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
        If the recording industry provided drugs then you'd probably be forced to purchase a whole bag of pills: yellow pikachu, blue dolphins, red dragons, and 1 capsule.
        
        Everyone knows that capsules are best, and having to buy a whole bag of sub-standard x (or 'e' for those on the east coast) just seems dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
        So I suppose the Spanish were protecting their intellectual property (gold stolen from the Incas, Mayans and Aztec) when Sir Francis Drake, operating as a privateer (pirate), opened up on them.
        
        All while Liz, Mk 1 was bankrolling him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re: Damage in the name of Entertainment
  > It isn't worth the risk to our property, to our homes,
  > to our very bedrooms, to allow this all in the name of
  > Entertainment.
  > ... but in the name of Entertainment we are willing
  > to fire off SOPA and PROTECT IP.
  
  Ah, but you miss one critical difference.
  
  The property destruction in your first example, no matter how large, is inflicted upon people who go to "low court".
  
  In the case of SOPA and PROTECT-IP, the alleged, claimed, unproven, and sometimes even disproved damage is done to people who go to "high court". Therefore, they should get their wish, regardless of how much damage is inflicted on everyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:27pm

Mythbusters ballistics
I had to stop watching Mythbusters, even though I usually enjoyed it. They had too many half-assed tests where they drew incredibly broad conclusions, like the "Sinking Boat Suction" test (a lot of sailors drowned this way in WWII, it's not a myth).

I always thought their weakest area were their ballistics tests, which always seemed to have one or two major flaws with the test, such as firing dead on at a target when testing a myth involving a glancing shot. Then, they would run the test two or three times and declare their results with 100% confidence.

It was just so frustrating to watch them declare something a myth when I can go to my bookshelves and easily find recorded verifiable examples of people being killed or maimed by the very phenomena being declared a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re: Mythbusters ballistics
  Another "Myth Busted" I just thought of was the "Pissing on the Electric Fence" test. They concluded that an electrical current can't travel up a stream of urine to shock someone.
  
  A quick Youtube search would have given them the correct answer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Travis, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
    With the electric fence, they confirmed it. One of those hits was Adam actually doing it and getting shocked. They busted pissing on the third rail, much farther distance and it couldn't maintain a lamaner flow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
      Ah, my mistake. I must have only seen the third rail one.
      
      Thanks for the correction.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
      If it had been the third rail used in European electric railways either Adam or Jamie or both would have been vapourized. Lots more voltage and current in dem puppies. ;-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
        OW OW WOWOWOW OW OW OW
        
        (spasms)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 10 Aug 2012 @ 5:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
    The myth was not if peeing on an electric fence would shock you but rather peeing on the "third rail" of an electric train track. They concluded it was busted because by the time the pee reached the third rail it was broken up and the electricity couldn't flow through it. The electric fence is a lot closer to the source so it would shock you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 10 Aug 2012 @ 5:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
      oops i see that was already stated. sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Mythbusters ballistics
  They have a very hard time disproving myths because (as you point out) reconstructing a myth is hard. There might always be some other factor that made it work.
  
  On the other hand, when they prove myths, they are pretty much proven. I especially enjoyed the one where they tried to figure out just how much force was required to "knock your socks off". Especially since in the end, they were able to do it, sort of.
  
  And in fact, Science is the same way. We have a darn hard time truly proving anything. But all it takes is one test that doesn't fit to prove an idea wrong.
  
  This is entertainment of the best sort, and if you are going to do reality shows, this is at least reality within the bounds of what a handful of hacks can make of it.
  
  Don't get frustrated. Enjoy it for what it is, a few hacks trying to do tests that are often beyond what a few hacks can really do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
    I'm not against the majority of their tests, only some of them. They don't always adhere to the scientific process as closely as they should, but they do a good job given the constraints of a TV show. Their math, physics, and other science basics are usually impeccable.
    
    It's just when they make obvious errors in setting up the tests that bothers me. And that too is okay, if they mention the limits of the test when drawing their conclusion. I just can't stand it when they smugly declare something a myth when a small amount of research would show that it's not a myth, but rather a very well understood and researched one-in-a-million phenomenon. My problem isn't that they're not recreating the circumstances of a test properly. It's that they try to recreate something that was a one-in-a-million shot, test it a couple times, then declare that it's a myth because they couldn't replicate it. This is especially irritating when we have very solid evidence that something has actually occurred in the past, which goes back to my ship sinking example.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
      Maybe you should just consider when they say "busted" it actually means "no realistic expectation this would happen under normal circumstances". That might ease your frustration. Or maybe it wouldn't; I don't know you very well. ;-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
    "They have a very hard time disproving myths...On the other hand, when they prove myths, they are pretty much proven."
    
    "And in fact, Science is the same way. We have a darn hard time truly proving anything. But all it takes is one test that doesn't fit to prove an idea wrong."
    
    Um...those two things sound like exact opposites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Paul (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 3:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
      Yeah, I blew it there.
      
      I wish I could edit ...
      
      Myth busting is really the opposite of Theory busting. In the first, you just need some way to demonstrate it can happen. Theory busting only requires one to show there exists at least one way to break it.
      
      Good catch.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
        It's okay, we knew what you meant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT, 8 Dec 2011 @ 3:18am
  
  Re: Mythbusters ballistics
  "It was just so frustrating to watch them declare something a myth when I can go to my bookshelves and easily find recorded verifiable examples of people being killed or maimed by the very phenomena being declared a myth."
  
  You think they don't have a team of researchers going to their "bookshelves"? What makes your bookshelves so much better than theirs? Sorry, you don't impress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- darryl, 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:33pm
  
  Re: Mythbusters ballistics
  I guess you forgot that it is not a science doco, it is a FUN show where they "try" to confirm or bust urban myths..
  
  Most here dont seem to 'get it', all they are doing is the things most young kids would just love to do but cannot or should not do.
  
  It is not intended to be educational, or to adhere to detailed scientific method, they are not producing a "paper" or scientific report, they are just taking what people tell them and trying it out themselves.
  
  They freely admit that they get it wrong all the time, and accept that is a part of the appeal of the show.
  
  It is not ment to be a dry, rigid scientific study, it's "give it a go" and see what happens !!!!
  
  It also appears from the show they are very carefull in ensuring correct safety assesments are carried out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:27pm

Mythbusters are lame. Trying to prove or disprove factual assertions with anecdotal apparatuses is just about the formula for a reality TV show.

If you want to learn something about nature, try science. Try dedicated, patient, dogged persistence. Feynman (more or less): I know how exceedingly difficult it is to know something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  what channel is that on?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Kardashian Sisters Channel
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  What makes you think people watch Mythbusters to learn something about nature?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gragnarple Fwifflelop, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:28pm

LoC
Yeah the Library of Congress archives EVERY tweet ever made. So there's no deleting anything off twitter period.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/1005/twitter.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: LoC
  Do they archive all of the images, too? For some reason, I just assumed they were only grabbing text, but I don't have any real reason for thinking this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:35pm
    
    Re: Re: LoC
    The internet archives saves both the tweets and the pictures. Even the porn ones, cause I know that's what you want to see! /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: LoC
      Yes, yes! I must do more... research!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm

My only question.

Was the Myth Busted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  No, there was a mythfire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It was all a terrible mythtake. They'll clear up the mythunderstanding in no time
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm

For all the "unscientific" complaints against Mythbusters
http://xkcd.com/397/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re: For all the "unscientific" complaints against Mythbusters
  That's awesome!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Webmaster, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:39pm

A few details
From what I've read, the houses were built long after the range was established.

Second, I suspect the pulled pics and tweets were ordered by the lawyers.

Third, liability. The police make sure that Mythbusters are properly and fully insured for accidents like this, however I I believe that range safety is the responsibility of the police. They would have had to sign off before that cannon was even loaded. I see a few new yachts in some lawyers futures as they figure out who is to blame for what.

Thankfully no one was hurt. I hope, once all the liability stuff is squared away that Mythbusters broadcasts this. It could be "Mythbusters greatest Mythasters!" :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: A few details
  I wonder how much, if anything, they caught on tape after the projectile left the range. At the rate the shot must have been traveling, there probably isn't much to see, just a dusty explosion where the shot went through the cinder block wall.
  
  Maybe one of their slow-mo cameras was pointed in the right direction, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:25pm
    
    Don't try this near homes : Re: A few details
    Even the news footage might be useful for making a program. If they are going to have to pay for the damages they might as well get a very special Mythbusters episode out of it. I think they need to add a don't try this near homes warning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:28pm
      
      Re: Don't try this near homes : Re: A few details
      You're right to say that the local news footage is pretty cool.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 10:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Don't try this near homes : Re: A few details
        What I would really like to see is someone do an animation. Something like New Media Animation...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2011 @ 11:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Don't try this near homes : Re: A few details
        I have to say it: These guys are fast.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:08pm
  
  Re: A few details
  Property law 101 tells you that "moving to the nuisance" curtails your ability to recover.
  
  Since the range was there first, there will likely be a quick settlement with an NDA.
  
  (While IANAL yet, I did just finish property law)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:31pm
    
    Re: Re: A few details
    Not necessarily! I believe you are wrong because [citation strongly needed]!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A few details
      And furthermore, I would like to direct you to [disproven facts]!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:35pm
    
    Re: Re: A few details
    An NDA is a violation of my rights to free speech --- so it will cost you extra.
    
    I work around sewage treatment plants sometimes. When they get odor complaints my first question is - "was the plant there before they purchased the property?" If no then they may complain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
umb231 (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:45pm

where children were returning from school at 4:15 pm... but the whole family in the house just happened to be asleep then? in the same room... why do I think there's more to this story then we're being told?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  Because you've never taken an afternoon nap, or worked the night shift, or had a day off?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  They had really collapsed because of a carbon monoxide leak. Thankfully the cannonball ventilated the house and sucked out all the CO. The mythbusters saved their lives!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  because you're paranoid
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re:
  I have another one.
  
  Because you've never gotten laid in the afternoon
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...the kids were in the bed too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lucidrenegade (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 5:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your point?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:24am
  
  Re: 4:15 pm
  Quoting from a great comment on the same question at slashdot:
  
  "Really? That's the part of the story that makes you say hmmm? The fact that reportedly a 6-inch cannonball fired from a homemade cannon busts through a cinder-block wall, then bounces off a hillside, then flies 700 yards and bounces again, then goes through a front door, bounces up a stairway and into a bedroom where it proceeds to bust through a stucco wall, and after all that, still had enough energy to fly over to a neighboring house hitting its roof and destroying a few roof tiles, crosses a six lane highway (still in the air, presumably) over into another neighborhood and crashes into a parked minivan shattering its windshield and destroying its dashboard is all copacetic with you, but taking a nap in the afternoon makes the story hard to believe?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
icedtea (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:46pm

I don't get the point about them deleting tweets and pics and trying to scrub a popular account. They weren't doing anything illegal (presumably) and had insurance (presumably) so deleting stuff just makes them look bad if this does go to some kind of trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:40pm
  
  Re:
  I can't speak for the author, but my take-away was that the lesson here is:
  
  "But, of course, you can't delete anything online... So, the photos & tweets have been preserved."
  
  I guess there are a number of questions here. What are the liability dangers of posting pictures before performing a test with a negligible failure rate on a controlled course? Does it look worse to leave the pictures up, or take them down after the accident? Etc., etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deidra, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:50pm

Boom!
I am actually surprised that they have not had any issues like this before with all the random objects they blow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: Boom!
  They have. When they blew up a cement truck a few years ago, the explosion shattered windows in houses over a mile away. It was in an old quarry, not at the bomb range though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Winger, 7 Dec 2011 @ 1:56pm

Not plausible
Hello. Doesn't anyone else find this story implausible? How is there a neighborhood less than half a mile from a bomb range? And how would the canon ball bounce around inside a house before blowing through another wall? Wouldn't it break through whatever else was inside the house? Like the stairs and walls, etc? And there was a man and a woman sleeping at 4:15 in the afternoon? Then it still had enough power to bust a van? Maybe. I don't know. Sounds fishy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: Not plausible
  Maybe we could get Mythbusters to check it out.....oh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:28pm
  
  Re: Not plausible
  Looks like something for the Mythbusters to try out!
  
  Oh wait...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Liz (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Not plausible
    This is what I get for not reloading my tabs...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travis, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: Not plausible
  After seeing pics and vids of the aftermath, it appears the cannonball bounced off the concrete in front of the house, broke through the top of the door, bounced off a wall at a very shallow angle, flew over the stairs, and through the back wall. Also, there are many reasons for a couple to be in bed at that time. Night shift, new baby just to name a couple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jase, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:30am
  
  Re: Not plausible
  Easily tested. Zoom out a bit.
  
  http://wikimapia.org/8706724/Alameda-County-Bomb-Disposal-Range
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xander84, 7 Dec 2012 @ 10:12am
  
  Re: Not plausible
  maybe it a future myth to bust
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xander84, 7 Dec 2012 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: Not plausible
  maybe it a future myth to bust
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:06pm

Are we sure they aren't testing the myth that America is a litigious society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re: Looks like someone has been drinking the Rush Kool-Aid
  It used to be that if your kid hit a baseball through a neighbors window, the kids parents were responsible for the damages.
  
  Now the insurance industry has managed to brainwash a significant percentage of 'men on the street' to believe that such accidents are nobody's fault, forcing homeowners to sue in order to get their damages paid for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChronoFish (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:29pm

I love Myth Busters.... But....
I love the show... but I noticed once the "Interns" started doing stuff that their approach to "safety" was much different than Adam's and Jamie's.

In one episode you could see Adam and Jamie seething with anger after "the kids" built a device in some sort of hanger that nearly killed them. After that episode it's been rare to see Adam and Jamie on the set when the "kids" were doing something explosives related.

This is just my impression - maybe wrongly.

**********

I also have a beef with Adam and Jamie. Those who watch and dare I say worship them, are the Makers and Geeks of the DIY / Open Source / Open Hardware / Open Data movement. They seem to be insulated from this fact, and I think it's sad.

-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re: I love Myth Busters.... But....
  Yeah, the B team is has been getting reckless over the last few years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vancedecker (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 2:33pm

Never been a fan of these two fakes...
The entire show, nearly every episode, has these 'tests' they set up attempting to prove or disprove some commonly held myth or urban legend.

More often than not, their shoddy 'science' doesn't prove or disprove anything, other than the desperation middle-American television viewers have in convincing themselves that they are watching something educational.

This doesn't seem to stop them from announcing in big bold letters, of type you might see in demolition derby or pawn shop, that this or that myth has been 'busted'

My father always told me, never trust a man with a mustache, and I'm not sure if Goatee's count, but I'm pretty sure they do in the case of these two hucksters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:28pm
  
  Re: Never been a fan of these two fakes...
  Never trust a man who has a gun as an avatar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 4:57pm

The myth they need to test
Considering about all they do these days is invent new ways to kill people, or build ways to kill people, or test to see if old ways to kill people actually worked as described, it's no longer my favorite show.

The myth they need to test, literally, not just figuratively for the hundredth time: is it really possible for a water-skier to leap over a large aquatic predator with a prominent dorsal fin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:33pm
  
  Re: The myth they need to test
  Shark or orca?
  
  Sharks don't breach anywhere near as well as orca's do. ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - B Pickel (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 10:47pm
    
    Re: Re: The myth they need to test
    Have you seen what happens when a great white meets a seal cut out of a bodyboard?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RT Cunningham (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 6:03am
  
  Re: The myth they need to test
  I guess some people just don't get it when you mention "jump the shark".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vancedecker (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re: The myth they need to test
    Ever watched Ghost Hunters International Special Christmas Episode?
    
    What Shark?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:14pm
    
    Re: Re: The myth they need to test
    I get it !!!!! HAYYYYYYYYYY
    
    those were 'happy days' !!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steerpike (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 5:41pm

The producers need to have George Lucas come in and re-film it so the neighborhood shoots at Mythbusters first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 7:46pm

"We're what you call ... professionals"

Myth Busted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:35pm

Quote:
The bunch of disadvantaged kids I was tutoring became too good at writing, and their essays were forcing me to confront painful existential questions, so I started trying to turn them on to drugs and crime instead.

Source: https://www.xkcd.com/987/

There is some sort of correlation between Mythbusters and the XKCD today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:42pm
  
  Re:
  Now that's on-topic!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 1:07am

id love to see the look on their faces when that happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:50am

They need to do a mythbusters on the myth that mythbusters has a clue.. lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:59am

Third, liability. The police make sure that Mythbusters are properly and fully insured for accidents like this,

Kinda hard to be totally insured against a negligent death - I wouldn't settle for whatever the insurance company wanted, if someone in my family was killed.. heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re:
  -- negligent death --
  
  Um, no one was killed, and no one has shown that any negligence has occurred.
  
  No one can insure against negligence, just as you cannot insure yourself for murder.
  
  If the took all reasonable precausions, and it appears safety is a high prioity on the show, then it would not be a case of 'willfull' negligence.
  
  They would be insured against public liability, that means if for some reason, even through the appropriate safety proceedures were followed, then the victim can claim against that public liability insurance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wesmorgan1, 8 Dec 2011 @ 11:21am

Well, to be fair...
They may have removed those pictures, but several members of the Mythbusters crew were tweeting about the incident all night, confirming that it happened, expressing relief that no one was hurt, apologizing, and assuring readers that they would be taking steps to prevent such accidents in the future.

I suspect that the pictures were removed simply to avoid the bad PR of "look - they're celebrating and showing off when someone could have been killed" reactions. Again, they were taking responsibility all night long (and into today, as they retweeted earlier messages) via written tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mental Mouse, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:24pm

That CBS video you linked is gone
The CBS site responds with "page not found".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:26pm

Jamie got big boom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2011 @ 10:05pm

Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood

It was no accident, I am absolutely sure that they had every intension to fire the cannonball, the accident was what occurred after the cannon was deliberately fired.

@wesmorgan1

Correct, clearly they are not trying to cover it up, removing those pictures was simply something that should have been done, for the reason of good taste, and to not as you say try to profit off what was an unfortunate accident.

But mythbusters did not accidently fire the cannon, that was deliberate.

Good on em, for being honest and trying to make amends for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
  Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
  
  It was no accident, I am absolutely sure that they had every intension to fire the cannonball, the accident was what occurred after the cannon was deliberately fired.
  
  "State Department suspects Iran is developing nuclear weapons"
  
  They don't suspect, they know Iran is! I mean, it clearly exists, we have satellite photos of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
    Yes, just like they had all those pictures of WMD's in Iraq.
    
    It's funny they had pictures, and all sorts of people saying what they were.
    
    But when they got there, and actually LOOKED, what did they find ??
    
    Freaking NOTHING... you believe everything your Government tells you ??...
    
    How sad for you..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
    what does the word "suspect" have to do with anything ??
    
    Did I say "suspect", all I was saying that the act of firing the canon was a deliberate action.
    
    What happend AFTER the canon was fired was an accident.
    
    Who said anything about "suspecting" something ??
    
    Talk about missing the point completely.. !!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters Crew Accidentally Fire Cannonball Through Suburban Neighborhood
      Did I say "suspect", all I was saying that the act of firing the canon was a deliberate action.
      
      Hm, I guess I have to explain in more detail. In my made-up headline, the word "suspect" applies to "Iran is developing nuclear weapons". If you mistakenly try to apply the word to a portion of the headline, such as "State Department suspects Iran is", it no longer makes sense.
      
      In the Mythbusters story, the word "accidentally" applies to "fire cannonball through suburban neighborhood". If you mistakenly try to apply the word to only a portion of the headline, such as "accidentally fire cannonball", it doesn't make sense.
      
      Obviously they meant to fire the cannonball, but there is no reason to point that out because the headline didn't say they accidentally fired a cannonball. It said they accidentally fired a cannonball through a suburban neighborhood.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]