MythBusters Bust House 631
ewhac writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the MythBusters accidentally sent a cannon ball hurtling through Dublin this afternoon, punching through a home, bouncing across a six-lane road, and ultimately coming to a rest inside a now-demolished Toyota minivan. Amazingly, there were no injuries. The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range, and was intended to strike a water target. Instead the ball missed the water, punched through a cinder-block wall, and skipped off the hill behind. Prior to today, the MythBusters had been shooting episodes at the bomb range for over seven years without major incident. It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment."
Busted! (Score:5, Funny)
Professionals my ass. I can do more damage than that by trying that at home, amateurs.
Re:Busted! (Score:4, Funny)
Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
Frankly, I would consider it an honor to have my minivan crushed by a Mythbusters experiment.
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
Keep the wreckage! (Score:5, Funny)
Frankly, I would consider it an honor to have my minivan crushed by a Mythbusters experiment.
I thought this as well. I'd be tempted to turn down the insurance settlement and just keep the wreckage, especially if you can keep the cannonball, too. You could probably get a LOT of money for it at auction from a fan who wants the famous Mythbusters experiment that went horribly wrong!
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure Discovery will cover it, and probably give them a substantial bonus and invite them to participate in the episode to boot.
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure Discovery will cover it, and probably give them a substantial bonus and invite them to participate in the episode to boot.
I think they've already participated in the episode.
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Funny)
They'll be listed in the credits as "Cannon Fodder."
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:5, Insightful)
A good question. My guess is no. This one rolled. So heavy round things hurled with extreme directed force should be avoided at this range (in other words, cannons).
It does raise questions, though. I'd like to see cops answer this one.
Re:Adam was quoted as (Score:4, Funny)
They said as much: "the MythBusters had been shooting episodes"
But frankly "the MythBusters had shooting episodes" would have covered that as well...
Interns? (Score:4, Funny)
One of the interns who are never visible on the mythbusters episodes probably did it. I think they just photoshop in Jamie and Adam on most episodes.
Remember (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Funny)
Someone once compared that show to Last of the Summer Wine; Three old men getting into mischief.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Savage and Huneman worked as professional special effects artists before they started in Mythbusters.
That is what made them professionals. Support your claims.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:4, Funny)
I would expect someone who works in special effects to have at least secondary expertise in the area of physics.
You can expect that all you want, yet here we are.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Clarkson and May were both automotive print journalists and reviewers/presenters on the old, more serious 'Top Gear', and Hammond was a professional radio and TV host, including a stint on 'Motor Week'.
In addition, they're all giant children.
So yes, they're all experts at what they do; Talk about cars and act like children on television.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com], for smug dipshits who feel the need to inject "They're not REAL scientists" into every Mythbusters thread.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
They also achieve 4 worthwhile goals:
1) They get people interested in science.
2) They show scientific experimentation using a variety of tools.
3) They entertain.
4) See #1
Re: (Score:3)
I mean if they did that in a bomb range. What would happen if average joe did it in their back yard.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean if they did that in a bomb range. What would happen if average joe did it in their back yard.
For me your point raises an interesting thought. Who are these people that are living within cannon shot of a bomb range? And would they really be all that surprised when some of their things accidentally get boomed?
Re:Remember (Score:5, Funny)
Bomb ranges don't generally have cannons. That would be like living near an airport and expecting a boat to crash into your house.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Remember (Score:4, Funny)
I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the [BOMB] range.
Interesting. I guess the vast majority of the people who live in the area also happen to be deaf.
-
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional really just means you have insurance for when you screw up.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Except in some episodes with guns, the Mythbusters always show that they have a professional gun or explosives guy around.
The Mythbusters may be certified to do pyro and explosives, but they take care to show on TV that they have an outside expert, usually from law enforcement.
If they were shooting off home made cannons at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range,
then they probably had the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb squad present to supervise.
Having insurance just means that you have to follow whatever protocols your insurer demands.
Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.
Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who has written a fair amount of sales copy for services, I can tell you categorically that "professional" means that we intend to get paid for it.
Intercontinental! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intercontinental! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Intercontinental! (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the shortest distance between any two continents, anywhere in the world?
If you exclude continents that are actually touching, then the Europe and Africa across the Straits of Gibralter. The gap is only 14.3km at it's narrowest, so transcontinental artillery is easily achievable (105mm howitzers have a range well in excess of 15km, and larger artillery can go much, much further). Of course, a traditional cannonball maxes out at a few hundred yards so setting up the Mythbusters experiment in Morocco would have merely been a hazard to shipping, not buildings.
Funny Stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
So why are they sleeping in the middle of the afternoon?
Just curious.
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing they're new parents.
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since you've apparently never been explained the meaning of the word "nap", let me provide a link to the definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nap [thefreedictionary.com]
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Heh. Spoken by a true non-parent.
It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed." Many many parents have done it.
Unless, of course, we have a night-shift worker parent and a very tired child care parent. Which also makes sense.
Sometimes you sleep when the baby does.
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Heh. Spoken by a true non-parent.
Spoken like a parent of two kids who has an "8-to-5" job! When my kids were infants, I was in sitting in a cubicle every morning and afternoon. (Now I telecommute.)
It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed." Many many parents have done it.
Only during the evening. Or on weekends when I was actually home during the afternoon.
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:Funny Stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Up stairs and through walls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Up stairs and through walls (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Up stairs and through walls (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Up stairs and through walls (Score:5, Informative)
Back when they used cannonballs in war, they used to fire "ground balls". The balls would bounce along on the ground, moving rather slowly.
Ineveitably some newbie would see it and try to stop it with his foot.
The next day they call those newbies "Stumpie" .
Re:Up stairs and through walls (Score:5, Informative)
Most British (and American) Ships of the Line from the late 17th and 18th centuries had long range forward facing guns called "Long Nines". These were cast iron, "9 pound" guns usually 8 or 9 feet in length used as a "chase gun" firing from the bow or stern of the ship. On the larger ships such as the classic British "Man of War", often entire broadside batteries were "long nines".
This was part of the reason why the British fleet ruled the seas for so long. They could take out an enemy from a range so far the enemy could not shoot back.
Don't worry guys! (Score:3)
By looking at the trajectory of the projectile between the entry hole in the house and the entry hole in the car, along with the complete lack of ballistic ectoplasm at the scene, I think we can conclude that myth to be busted, either by the scientific method or extreme prejudice, we aren't quite certain...
Belleci/Imahara/Byron (Score:5, Informative)
MythBusters (Score:4, Funny)
Having run out of myths, those at MythBusters have to broaden their definition of "busting"...
Wow, impressive (Score:5, Funny)
They shot a cannonball all the way from Alameda to Ireland?!? Holy shit, those guys are good!
Its not their problem (Score:5, Insightful)
MythBusters isn't at fault here, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range is. Its their job to ensure the safety of any tests conducted on their site. Half the time you see sheriff whats-his-name preparing the explosives and one of the MB crew pushes the button to make boom. This will probably result in a few sensationalist headlines, insurance claims and the bomb range building bigger hills out of dirt. Case closed.
Re:Its not their problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It is their problem if the Alameda County Sheriff's Department gets cold feet (or sued) and doesn't want to do any more myth busting.
Re:Its not their problem (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that the cannonball bounced off of one of the backing berms, the "hill" being spoken about in the news.
NIMBY's (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NIMBY's (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in this case the bomb range was built first, and then they build houses around if afterwards. It takes NIMBY to quite another level when you build the backyard in question on top of what you don't want there.
Re:NIMBY's (Score:4, Informative)
It takes NIMBY to quite another level when you build the backyard in question on top of what you don't want there.
Happened quite frequently in the 1970s and 1980s, with fresh suburbanites screaming about noise from airports that had existed for decades.
Re:NIMBY's (Score:5, Insightful)
So, airport exists in the 1950s. This airport gets occasional traffic from prop planes, mostly daylight hours when no one is around. Hence, people don't worry about the noise, and build homes near the airport.
Air travel booms in the 60s/70s/80s. Jet engines are introduced; noise is probably 10x - 100x what it was before. Wouldn't you complain?
Some idiot air travel company tried to do that in our neck of the woods recently. "Let's extend the runway for your minor use airport by 1000' - it's a safety issue for our pilots!" Bullshit. It's a way to bump the airport from "minor use" status to the next step up, which is cargo planes taking off and landing 24/7. I don't mind "minor use" - I like seeing the light aircraft taking off/landing/flying overhead, especially in the summer when they bring in the old WW2 aircraft - but I do mind cargo jets taking off/landing over my "suburbanite" home, because they are many orders of magnitude louder than all the other aircraft we've got going here right now.
Needless to say, that idiot air travel company was tarred & feathered & run out of town.
Not On My Mini Van! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NIMBY's (Score:5, Informative)
With the combined magic of Google Street View plus the images in the linked article, we can be more specific than that.
This image [tinypic.com] shows the cannonball's trajectory. Location #1 is the house that the cannonball went through, apparently entering through the front door and exiting through the rear wall. Location #2 is the driveway in which the cannonball came to a stop in a minivan.
Re:NIMBY's (Score:5, Informative)
And here's one [tinypic.com] that shows the complete trajectory from the bomb range.
What is wrong with journalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who really cares about the police show us more pictures of the hole and the vehicle.
Re:What is wrong with journalism. (Score:5, Funny)
Misfortune my ass. They'll be telling that story for the rest of their lives. Top THAT at a bar.
"I once caught a huge bass."
"I once banged a really hot girl."
"Yeah, well I once had a cannonball shot through my house by the Mythbusters."
Best. Episode. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best. Episode. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
At least until they "accidentally" create a singularity that destroys half a state, and permanently alters the rules of our relative space-time.
And today, a Very Special Mythbusters at the Large Hadron Collider!
Myth: Creating Strange Matter and allowing it to escape containment could cause the Earth to be completely converted to Strange Matter and end life as we know it!
Will it make a boom? Let's find out!
Coming soon December 12, 2012!
Myth Busted (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see them try to replicate the "myth" that a cannonball that is initially fired at a bunch of water can wind up skipping off a hill, go through a house 700 yards away, go through 6 lanes of traffic and come to rest in a car.
They probably won't be able to do it again and declare it busted.
For a second there... (Score:4, Funny)
I thought they conclusively demonstrated that it's plausible if not outright confirmed most of the time, it actually IS Lupus.
never mind.
Video and Pics (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody hurt, good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nobody hurt, good (Score:5, Insightful)
Pictures from the bomb range! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Footage (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? That's ratings GOLD, my friend. Hell, Discovery will probably promo the shit out of it.
The only way you wouldn't see footage like that was if someone got seriously hurt or killed. And even then they would probably do a very special "tribute" episode.
Re:Footage (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not as they expected it to just impact with the water containers. Still, the path it took was quite impressive. From the article:
Out of the cannon, through the cinder-block wall, off the hillside, flies 700 yards, bursts through a front door, races up the stairs, through a bedroom, exiting the house, across a six lane highway, off a roof and slams into a Toyota Sienna. Wow.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Informative)
It's a television show. It was probably planned WEEKS in advance.
I will believe this the minute people involved in the show are arrested and prosecuted. Until then, the safe bet is publicity stunt.
People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.
If anything the Mythbusters are too careful. It's clear not just from their "don't try this at home" every half hour but from everything they do that they're expected to exemplify caution and thorough planning in all circumstances. And they have a big-ass staff to do it; not just the entire crew at M5 but a lot of people at their insurance company examine and clear every stunt.
No, any jury or civil judge would inevitably conclude that the Mythbusters were careful to a fault. They'd ask for a free T-shirt, tell the insurance company to pay up and the victims to quit bitching, and send Adam and Jamie on their merry way.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
A large percentage of what they do on the show is strictly for entertainment value. Many of the so-called myths they test, and the methods they devise to test them, are completely predictable by anyone with any common sense, yet they perform the "tests" anyway because they involve entertaining car wrecks, explosions, fire balls, or Adam ending up in pain and/or puking.
It's a TV show, so 100% of what they do is strictly for entertainment value. It just so happens that they've managed to capture parts of the scientific method in ways that end up being entertaining. The fact that many of their experiments are predictable isn't a mark against them, either - science is about formally testing and verifying any kind of knowledge, and sometimes, even when we think the answer is obvious, it turns out differently than we expect and we learn something from it.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Funny)
science is about formally testing and verifying any kind of knowledge, and sometimes, even when we think the answer is obvious, it turns out differently than we expect and we learn something from it.
For instance, one of my classic physics experiments in high school: We dropped two differently weighted object, using a ticker-tape mechanism to time the fall. Contrary to all expectations, the heavier object fell faster. Consistently. After basking in our moment of triumph for demolishing all understanding of gravity since Galileo, we were told to explain the difference as related to the friction of the ticker-tape.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to all expectations, the heavier object fell faster.
This is correct. It can take quite a few iterations before one has a fool proof release mechanism that does not favor the heavier object.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't remember which battle it was (still nursing my morning coffee), but I recall the British navy shelling an American fort in a similar situation. There was a large hill in the way and they couldn't fire directly on the fort, so they tried "skipping" cannonballs off of a hill. It worked - the cannonballs bounced off of the hill and went up and over.
I remember at least the "cannon = hill = sky high flying cannonball" part and I learned this in high school (at the latest). It kinda surprises me that no one on the entire crew (the performers or the technical folks) made this logical leap and thought "Hey, that hill there... you don't think it could...?"
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Insightful)
The TV news report says that the cannonball completely missed the water barrels and cinderblock wall that were supposed to stop its journey.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the biggest question is that: 'Will they air the accident sequence and the resulting damage'? I REALLY think that they should, it is a good lesson as to why you do not try this stuff at home.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Informative)
Resulting damage and initial part, maybe- too valuable not to. But I really think they didn't have cameras on the back side of the hill.
And they have shown that sort of footage in the past - the "instant convertable" myth (where the car doesn't stop as expected after going under the semi, launches off a berm and ends up in a ditch on the other side of the fence), they show the launch (several times - because that was cool), and more importantly, focus on the team's reactions (which were obviously unscripted "oh ****" type responses), and then show them finding the car and having "oh, this could have sucked a whole lot" type conversations. (I think one of the "don't try this at home" bits are actually in front of the car.)
I imagine they'll still use the bomb range in future - they'll just point the cannon *away* from the residential housing...
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Informative)
Except that they always, *always*, have officials of the local emergency services and experts on hand when they do stuff like this. Pretty much once your experiment has been cleared by fire/safety, the police, and a known explosives expert you can wash your hands of criminal liability. They're still financially responsible for the damage of course, but unless this is some sort complete departure from their normal modus operandi they did more than enough due diligence to avoid criminal prosecution for gross negligence.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Insightful)
No, obviously they didn't.
That isn't "obvious" at all, unless you have some insider information. Sometimes, even if you take all precautions that seem necessary, shit happens. The fact that something went wrong is not in itself evidence of carelessness.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem awfully angry.
The show has evolved into 5 people getting paid to blow crap up. If someone walked up to you and offered you a mind-boggling amount of money, plus side income from speaking engagement fees, etc, to set fire to things, blow stuff up, and to build and play with large and dangerous equipment, are you saying you wouldn't jump at the chance?
For 90% of the myths that they test to demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic physics, at least 90% of the myths they test would have to require such an understanding. I would submit that many of the myths they test require no such understanding, and so your statistics are called into question.
I have yet to see promos for Obama (care to link to that?), and of course they put zany antics high up on the list. It's a TV show. People skip physics class to watch TV because most people find TV more entertaining than physics class. If TV just broadcasts a physics class, people are going to change the channel. After all, the show is called Mythbusters, not Science Hour. Without ratings, the show goes away and gets replaced with another iteration of Ice Road Truckers. Which would you rather have on the air? Even Ed Murrow had to do stupid entertainment celebwatch pieces in between his good journalistic pieces in order to keep his show on the air.
As for the comment you replied to, yes shit sometimes does happen despite all best efforts to prevent shit from happening. As others have noted, this scene was undoubtedly signed off on by the fire department, the cops, the insurance underwriters, and probably ordnance/explosive experts. It isn't as though these guys wandered out and began blindly firing canons toward houses without thinking the situation through, which is what you're implying in your eagerness to crap all over the show.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying their 3rd overall priority for the entire series is a tie between Rogen and "shitty promos of Obama" based on the fact that they had *one* segment of *one* episode about Obama pretty much proves that you're irrationally attacking them because you, personally, for whatever reason, hate them.
As for them testing myths that are clearly true or false to anyone who understands Newton's laws. . What's your point? The show puts myths to the test. It wouldn't last very long if every segment was Jamie saying "Well this would be fucking obvious to you viewers if you weren't science retards."
A lot of myths are obviously bullshit to people who are well-versed in whatever subject the myth is about. The show is aiming at people who are not well-versed in those subjects, but who are interested in learning something about them (and who like something to blow up from time to time, which really is most of us ;) ). It's pretty obvious to me that if the powerful radar in the nose of an airplane, not to mention the air-to-ground phones installed in the plane, and the radios, and all the other emitting electronic devices don't screw up the instruments in the cockpit, then my cell phone certainly won't. But to people who don't have experience with radio communications, or who don't even know that airplanes have all those things installed in them, it might not be quite so clear. Doing an episode about that myth, therefore, makes sense - a lot more sense than opening and closing the segment with "Do cell phones interfere with airplanes? No. Duh."
Rather than insulting viewers by telling them that if they actually knew something they'd know the myth is BS, this show presents the information in a more entertaining and accessible way. I feel fairly safe in guessing that you'd agree with me that science education in the US is largely crap, which is why so many people fall for bullshit like life force bracelets and other stupid products. As we therefore have a large population of people who might be perfectly fine in the intelligence department, but nonetheless ignorant about aspects of science, a show that gets people interested even in a peripheral way about science or, at the very least, the scientific principle that you don't just randomly believe any crap you hear about, but test it out to see if it's plausible, is in my book a pretty good idea.
Plus, being pissed off at the 2 cohosts for not being physicists when they never claimed to be physicists, and specifically state in the intro to the show that they're movie prop makers, is kind of silly. They're two reasonably intelligent people who are very good at making custom devices and are therefore ideally suited for an "average joe wants to know about this myth" show.
I certainly don't make the claim that the Mythbuster crew is composed of scientists or that the show is about rehashing science that everyone should, according to you, already know. But Mythbusters doesn't make that claim either.
I suspect your version of the show would be very much more scientifically rigorous and educational, and thoroughly grounded in whatever discipline the myth-of-the-day required.
I also suspect that no one would watch it.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Insightful)
People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents.
Want to bet?
Yes, I will bet you a large sum of money that no one will be arrested and prosecuted for this accident. How do you want to handle the wager? Some sort of escrow? How long do we have to go before you'll admit that those ne'er do well Mythbusters got away with it scott free? Because I don't want five years from now you still saying, "It's still possible that they could be arrested!"
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:4, Interesting)
What people get arrested for is negligence. Accidents, not so much.
If you're driving drunk and you get in a wreck, you were not involved in an accident because you were not exercising a standard of care that the law requires; namely, not driving whilst intoxicated. If you're texting and run over a class full of kindergartners crossing the street to the park, same thing. If you're excessively speeding and wreck, ditto. None of these are accidents, because accidents are by definition unforeseen, and most often, unpreventable.
Hitting a deer might be an accident. Colliding with a motorcycle rider who was stupidly riding in your blind spot might be an accident. A truck driver having a heart attack, dying at the wheel and dumping the toxic contents of his truck into a pristine mountain river is an accident.
Accidents usually involve some amount of civil liability, even if people are maimed or killed. Negligence involves criminal liability. Two different things. Y'all need to stop using 'accident' incorrectly. I once again propose a new word: neglident.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nothing. You can be arrested for resisting arrest.
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to be too pedantic (Score:5, Funny)
Dublin?
Can they demolish the rest of the place, and then move on to Pleasanton?
I think they'd do good, were they to level everything along the 680 corridor - up to Altamont.
Re:I thought (Score:4, Funny)
Probably not. They'll get fired, arrested, mysteriously disappear from prison, and coincidentally, the DoD will have a new "Mythical" or "Buster" kinetic/ballistic weapons research team!
Re:I thought (Score:5, Funny)
The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at ... a water target
The nerds who couldn't shoot straight.
The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department...
All of a sudden a Bob Marley song is running through my head...
Re:OK, here is my myth submission to Mythbusters (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful.
First they'll build a scale model 6" high and do some "math". Then they'l knock up a 6-foot section of a life size wall and call it plausible. They'll they "upscale" things and end up building a wall around the equator and blowing it up.