[thecatspajamas]

Also consider that the guy using the term "video recorder" is not the Kodak employee who probably would have used the proper term.

Either way though, I would agree with the general sentiment that this video clip (sorry, film clip) is not definitive proof of the ball's authenticity, and could be applied in the same fashion to ANY Ruth-signed ball that passes through this gentleman's hands. It's like having a photo of a player sitting at a table with a pen in their hand as proof that your item was signed by them. It's nice to have, but it's not proof.