It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Usain Bolt finish with 9.4 and not 9.58s on the 100 m dash? Video and image included.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Himal
What do you think would be the "un-breakable" time record for the 100m dash? The record seems to fall every year or so now.


5 seconds











posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod


I think it's because when bolt is dead on the line, the clocks time still hasn't yet moved on to 9.58. Simply put, it took the clock a bit longer to calculate bolts time.


Well if that was the case then the clock is wrong. There may not be a conspiracy involved then but it's still wrong.

If there is a censor on the finish line then the time would stop as soon as he broke the plane. I would like to think that Bolt is too fast for the camera but I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thats the thing though, the on screen clock is obviously not a perfect sync with the stadium clock. Is there a screenshot showing the stadium clock and bolt when he gets to the line?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thats the thing though, the on screen clock is obviously not a perfect sync with the stadium clock. Is there a screenshot showing the stadium clock and bolt when he gets to the line?


No, on the first video I posted the on-field clock is not shown until Bolt turns the curve a bit and it reads 9.58. I believe another poster showed various angles where it was hard or impossible to see the clock on the field as soon as he crosses the line. Usually Sports Illustrated has photos that may resemble what we are looking for, but other than that I have not seen anything of the sort.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
the only clock that matters is the official onfield clock or the one the official judges use.

not the one the television network uses.

but can't you time it youself using a stop watch and the video.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
the only clock that matters is the official onfield clock or the one the official judges use.

not the one the television network uses.

but can't you time it youself using a stop watch and the video.


good idea, I timed it myself 4 times, and every time I got closer to 9.4 than 9.58, twice I actually got 9.36. I encourage other people to try it themselves.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Actually, according to the clock in the first video, I stopped it at 9.3 and Bolts foot was on the line.
Of course, that is not the official time....as they always state before a race. The official time is kept on the field and compared in the press box,
But none-the-less...at 9.3 his foot was on the line.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


I posted an interview of the events manager from Seiko. She acknowledges the on-field clock and the on-screen clock are the same chronometer. The official time is then altered with the help of a second system.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that


I am not sure how accurate it is to time Bolt on the video because of video compression distortions and possible anomalies.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The clock on the screen isn't the official time. Its the guess for the audience. The officials go back right after the race to determine the official times, its always this way if you watch track races. The runners and tv-anounceers normally have to wait a min or so for the official times. But its possible they change times maliciously in that short window.

If you really want to know how fast Bolt ran the 100m in Bejing, watch the video and time him with your own device. Maybe, he did run it in 9.4s and they changed it to 9.58s for whatever reason.
edit on 28-2-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
The officials go back right after the race to determine the official times, its always this way if you watch track races. The runners and tv-anounceers normally have to wait a min or so for the official times.


What they wait for are the other times and sometimes the arrival order. The other times can be a national or a continental record. But you'll never wait for the winner's time, pay attention to it next time, the winner's time is instantaneous, well not entirely instantaneous but the humain brain can't discern it we were told...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 


I've seen tons of races and swims the times aren't official for any contestant right after the race ends. Humans have to watch the race over again to double check the winner's time, conditions, make sure nothing illegal happened, and give everyone else their exact time. The computer/screen time right as the race ends isn't the final word. The officials need to sign off on it.

edit on 28-2-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Checking the conditions and if anything illegal has happened is different from the timekeeping. Sometimes, there is a wait because the winner is uncertain. Times need to be officially recognized by the officials anyway of course but unless there is a technical problem, I can't remember a winner's time being changed long after the end of a race.

I think the second system is maybe based on the photo finish and that times are derived from the winner's time based on the photo. But how the winner's time is determined seems fishy.

You are right the automatic timing right as the race ends isn't the final word. I have learnt that it is instantaneously corrected with the help of a second system. Look, just a few steps after Bolt has crossed the line, the on-screen clock stops at 9"58, the on-field and on-screen clocks are automatically corrected instantaneously in a few hundredth of seconds. I find it astonishing really and I am really interested to look into it.

It's clear to me that the automatic timing isn't perfectly reliable but the IAAF and the official timekeeper, Seiko in this case, a sponsor too, will not recognize it.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 


This is the world record from Beijing. Watch the first 2 mins. At 1:46 the announcer says the "the time adjusted officially to 9.69." The original time when Bolt finished was 9.68 then the officials re-watched it and changed the time the computer got. They change the time on the screen all the time, but normally the computer is correct. However, there's always a delay before the official time is confirmed.
www.youtube.com...


You know, technically Bolt did run the 100m in 9.4 secs because his reaction time was 0.16ish secs. Maybe, the time on the screen in Berlin was based solely on Bolt's run (knowing he could set a world record) and then they added his reaction time after to get the official time?



edit on 28-2-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


It's a different situation from what I thought you were talking about but I concede you are absolutely right and I am wrong, times can be changed a minute after the end of the race.

Though the on-screen clock and the on-field clock are the same clocks. The times difference in the OP's vids can't be put on a dummy on-screen clock, it's "official".
The time on-screen being the same as the time on the on-field board, it's not credible it was not started at the starter, it would be against the regulations. And why showing an incorrect time that will be corrected in a second or less ?


edit on 1-3-2011 by Manouche because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
reply to post by randomname
 


I posted an interview of the events manager from Seiko. She acknowledges the on-field clock and the on-screen clock are the same chronometer. The official time is then altered with the help of a second system.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that


I am not sure how accurate it is to time Bolt on the video because of video compression distortions and possible anomalies.


where did you post this interview? So is the on-screen clock synchronized with the official clock? You say the official time is "altered" what does that mean?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
i used my own stopwatch, and it averaged out to 9.48 seconds. i used a high def video on youtube of the race and started the watch at exactly when the shot goes off and stopped it when usains foot plants on the line.

the highest end figure was closer to 9.58 but most them averaged out at 9.48 to 9.51.

there's even a bigger conspiracy, it's bolt's 200 m record of 19.19 . i timed it 5x and kept getting 18.8.

this is at the same meet. there is something definitely wrong with the watches they used at that meet.

or the germans don't like black atheletes.


edit on 1-3-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
i used my own stopwatch, and it averaged out to 9.48 seconds. i used a high def video on youtube of the race and started the watch at exactly when the shot goes off and stopped it when usains foot plants on the line.

the highest end figure was closer to 9.58 but most them averaged out at 9.48 to 9.51.

there's even a bigger conspiracy, it's bolt's 200 m record of 19.19 . i timed it 5x and kept getting 18.8.

this is at the same meet. there is something definitely wrong with the watches they used at that meet.

or the germans don't like black atheletes.


edit on 1-3-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)


I timed the race multiple times and got 9.43 more than any other time. I also timed it and intentionally delayed it just a bit, and it was closer to 9.58. We're talking fractions of a second but even with a conventional stop watch it's clear to see he was under the 9.58 mark. I'll have to do some more research on the 200 m dash race as well, if this happened to both races then WOW



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join