My friend just send me this video of a baseball bat mysteriously standing up after being thrown. He claims it happened but I say its fake: Baseball bat standing up in a fake looking way
Did this happen or is it a fake video?
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
This is from a September 12, 2007 game. Braves vs Mets. Martin Prado is the batter.
Discussion of the event happened online in the weeks following. Example discussion at Ebaum's World, September 26, 2007.
The announcer was surprised, saying "that would never happen in 100 years".
It was reported in AOL News (via Web Archive) on September 18, 2007.
Other video angles of this event have been taken down from YouTube because of Major League Baseball copyright claims: http://atlanta.metblogs.com/2007/09/17/martin-prado-bat-man/
While this doesnt prove this, it explains the lack of alternate angles.
Here is another instance of this almost happening: http://youtu.be/Wonpmn4nycQ
That is to lower the threshold of evidence for people who think this is impossible.
Here is somebody discussing it the day sfter (http://nextyear.blogspot.ca/2007/09/tapes-n-tapes.html?m=1):
After Martin Prado grounded out to second (and dropped the bat in a way that it bounced up and landed perfectly on its end -- baseball can be funny sometimes, and not just in the important stuff)
That was the following day. You can see it is little more than a mention to the baseball community. This was an important late season game. Prado was brought in for this one at-bat in the ninth and his team lost. The significance of this game far outweighed the unimportant bat balancing thing.
As for why the camera doesn't zoom in, they use a fixed view camera over the plate for strike zone analysis.
The fallacy that doubters seem to be making is anomaly hunting.. They have an idea of what should have been the reaction without an understanding of the context of that at-bat or the game in the playoff hunt. Absense of evidence is only evidence of absense if the evidence really should be there. In this case, the things doubters say are missing are reasonable to be missing.
What constitutes an anomaly? Well, anything you want to count as an anomaly. There are no specific criteria. In practice the criterion is – it seems weird to me. This then opens the door to confirmation bias. Seek and ye shall find.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?