This is Monty Python we're talking about. The fans overthink everything. We put the 'anal' into over-analysis.

Case in point, here are a few things that may or may not be relevant that he missed:
1) We see Bedevere tying coconuts to birds' legs to distribute them, as per the first castle scene.

2) When God talks to Arthur, both are played by Graham Chapman. Does this mean God is only in his/your own mind? The other knights react to what they see, but don't talk to him or reference anything he says.

3) You can see that when the black knight is down just just the one leg, he's actually played by a one-legged local instead of by Cleese.

There's lots of this rubbish, and we love it. I only just made up number two (although it is true).

As a bonus, here's a relevant XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/16/

These are the Chapman Swifts, a swarm of Vaux's Swifts that have been roosting at the Chapman Elementary School in Portland, OR for decades. More here: http://audubonportland.org/local-birding/swiftwatch

Take your Chapman University degree and slit your wrists with it. K.

(EDIT: I meant to direct that at the soulless creators of the original commercial. The yt comedian deserves to live forever in the light of the one true God.)

I love this guy. Not only is he very convincing, but the way he does everything in a single shot means he comes across like a cross between Kenny Everett and Graham Chapman. But alive, obviously.

@Sagemind, I hear ya, and yeah, I'm also sick of boring manufactured pop, with marketed manufactured outrage (Miley Cyrus twerks!).

But I don't think things are quite as bad as you believe them to be.

Look at this video on the sift at the moment.
http://videosift.com/video/Alabama-Shakes-Dont-Wanna-Fight-No-More

Here we have a band that play their own instruments, fronted by a plus size black woman playing guitar on one of the biggest TV shows in the US.

Meanwhile, talented guys like Rob Chapman are able to use youtube to make a comfortable living and allowing them to record and tour.

Not entirely cut and dry.
+ Gun suicide fell
+ Mass shootings fell.
- Gun homicide in general didn't fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia

"Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[33] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[34] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[35]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[37] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[38]"

-scheherazade

I thought you might be overestimating the force of a thrown baseball as compared to the steel ball bearing, so I tried to do some research and run numbers to compare.

Some googling says a baseball should weigh 5-5.25 ounces (about 1/3 of a pound).

Another page and some quick calculations that I might have screwed up[ (4*pi*.5*.5*.5)/3*.283 ] say that the ball bearing might weigh about .15 pounds -- a bit under half of the baseball.

On the other hand, the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB (by Nolan Ryan) was 108.1 MPH or 158.5 feet per second. Harder to find data on "muzzle" velocity of a slingshot, but this page suggests that some people claim some slingshot projectiles can travel at 300 feet per second, but he argues that 180 to 200 fps is probably a more realistic high end for a .50 caliber lead ball (which would probably/possibly? be heavier than the 1" steel ball since lead is more dense). Anyway, there is at the very least a slight advantage to the slingshot here as compared to the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB. Considering the draw length and pull strength of the slingshot in the video, I'd say it is probably actually much faster than the conservative 180-200 fps number from that page.

So then you've got @cosmovitelli 's formula (mass times velocity squared). The mass of the baseball is probably double that of the steel ball, but the velocity is probably 25-90% faster (or even more) and then squared. That probably overcomes the disadvantage in mass and then some.

Then again, this is all fairly academic as you suggested because the lethality of the bullets/projectiles is dependent on them being small enough to puncture, tear flesh, break/shatter bones, etc. Apply that kinetic energy to a very small impact site. However, in spite of its large size, I bet that steel ball could do a lot of damage given its kinetic energy -- which is what I would take away from their claims of it "hitting harder". I wouldn't want to stand in front of a Nolan Ryan fastball either, but given the choice between that and the slung steel ball... I'd take the plunk and have somebody take my base for me.

This video contains disingenuous information. Those statistics are completely false.

@chingalera It's working a lot better than the current USA situation. Here's a few legitimate facts relating to the content in that video.

1. You can still buy guns (pistols, rifles, shotguns), just not the ridiculously unjustified mass human slaying variants.
2. It's better controlled with systems setup to decrease the chance of consistently unstable minds getting hold of guns of any type.
3. Gun homicides were increasing leading up to the gun control (1996), from that peak to now, it's about a 59% drop.
4. 1996-2006 about 65% drop in gun suicides.
5. Robberies involving guns dropped significantly.
6. There was no increase in home invasions.
7. In the 10 years leading up to the gun control there were 11 mass shootings.. since gun control went into affect, there have been 0.

Homicide weapon statistics (image): Guns vs Knives from 1989/90 to 2006/7
Quick answer: 50% drop for guns, 30% rise for knives
http://aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

"A 2011 letter published in the British Medical Journal by Simon Chapman, a professor of public health from the University of Sydney, observed that the U.S. had 14.4 times the population of Australia but 141 times as as many deaths from firearms in 2008 as Australia and 238 times the rate of firearms-related homicide."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/2012/12/20/gun-control-searching-down-under-for-change-to-believe-in/
If the current ratio's are even remotely similar to this quote, then Americans can't say jack about the Australian statistics.

@charliem Good links mate.

Upvote for the 'Lies' tag.

He sounds kind of like Tracy Chapman.

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

thanks, my mistake (that'll teach me to blindly copy yt tags).

>> ^wormwood:

Maybe fix the tags. It's John Cleese and Eric Idle (with intro by Graham Chapman). No Gilliam on stage here.

Maybe fix the tags. It's John Cleese and Eric Idle (with intro by Graham Chapman). No Gilliam on stage here.

...simply...yeah

*quality


Singer reminds me of a cross between Tracy Chapman and Joan Jett.

Because the CIA confiscated a UFO and used it to inject cancer cells into our best people through drugs. And because Mark David Chapman is an alien.>> ^rougy:

Why do the good die young?

That's a Chapman stick(so someone suggested), and it's a dupe of this
http://www.videosift.com/video/Super-Mario-Theme-on11-string-bass

Made a similar original title-mistake as well....

*dupeof