MythBusters results, question about bias

[T'ai Chi]

I've been interested in the TV show MythBusters for a while, generally impressed by what they do, and it makes for entertaining TV.

I wrote this (http://www.statisticool.com/mythbusters.htm) a while ago on one of their episodes, which thankfully led me to the interesting work done by Provine on scientifically studying yawning.

Anyway, just now I did a rough tally of the MythBusters' total outcomes (see attached graph).

It got me thinking, could someone look at their results at say 'Wow! See, all those silly people believing in those myths, when they are just a bunch of bunk!', yet another person look at their results and say 'Well, their name is the MythBusters, not the MythConfirmers, so what, did you really expect to see any other result other than the debunking of soft-targets?' ?

Of course, it is entertainment, so I don't really get up in arms about the debate applied to a fun TV show. But in the 'real world', say you have an organization that is pro X. Wouldn't you expect to see studies 'demonstrating' the pro X result more often than not? And same argument applies to an organization that holds that anti-X position.

How do you personally make a decision on X if there are an equal number of scientifically good studies, each showing the pro X and anti-X position?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But in the 'real world', say you have an organization that is pro X. Wouldn't you expect to see studies 'demonstrating' the pro X result more often than not? And same argument applies to an organization that holds that anti-X position.

One of the most reasoned statements I have seen posted on this forum.

Well done!

[Wowbagger]

They should be called "MythTesters", but it just doesn't sound as good as "Mythbusters". But, they are really after testing myths, for their validity. They are not just out to bust them.

The Mythbusters' conclusions are based on what is self-evident in each test. They really don't make any judgement calls - it either works or it does not.
And, when their answer is not quite clear enough, they admit it is "plausible". They don't shoehorn it into "busted" or "confirmed". More testing might be necessary, in that case.

Other things to add:
* They don't just put in a little token effort, either. These folks try their darndest to get the myths to work. They only give up after exhaustive effort.

* They are sometimes suprised at their results, more times than most would like to admit. If a result does not agree with their personal prediction, they "publish" anyway. They don't sweep it under a rug.

* Anyone with the proper resources and training (if necessary) can try to duplicate their results. They are out there for the community to scrutinize. They do not conduct their efforts in secret labs.

* Sometimes they get things wrong. (Hey, no one is perfect). But, they own-up to it! They retest and revisit whenever necessary, and sometimes the outcomes could be different. They publish the new results in its place, and talk about what they did wrong before, and what they learned since.

* Etc.

[Wowbagger]

How do you personally make a decision on X if there are an equal number of scientifically good studies, each showing the pro X and anti-X position? Can you give me an example of this, just out of curiosity?

[Pyrts]

Of course, it is entertainment, so I don't really get up in arms about the debate applied to a fun TV show. But in the 'real world', say you have an organization that is pro X. Wouldn't you expect to see studies 'demonstrating' the pro X result more often than not? And same argument applies to an organization that holds that anti-X position.
It depends on how intellectually honest they are, and what the consequences of X are.

If there's very poor evidence but they just BELIEVE something to be true, then they may well ignore the negatives. We see this in selective memory and other similar things. If they can accept that the negative MIGHT be true (biased but somewhat open to change) and they keep records, then they will change their mind.

I've done it. Had to do it (academically and scientifically) last week. Luckily I wasn't stupid enough to write a paper on the thing. That kind of forces your position.

How do you personally make a decision on X if there are an equal number of scientifically good studies, each showing the pro X and anti-X position?
Speaking as someone with experience in this, you generally don't unless there are specific conditions.

Let's say there's a controversial new treatment and half say it's a placebo effect and half say it works at a 75% effective rate. Then you weigh how important it is to you, personally (is the pain/whatever worth a 75% chance), how it will impact you (cost, time, trouble), and how close a match you are to the patients in the successful study (are they all young and you're over 50?)

Now... the Mythbusters' choices are actually fairly clear. They look for myths were people are claiming that basic laws of physics or physiology are possibly being violated.

The average human's understanding of physics and physiology is pretty poor (to judge from some of the classes I've taught.) So there tend to be more wild claims than observations of true but extraordinary events. In addition, each of these stories is often framed as a "cautionary tale", which means it may have been elaborated on.

So we have three conditions (bad observations, poor understanding of physics/physiology, tale elaboration) that exist which open avenues for "bad data" to creep into the "myth."

They do cherry pick for things they CAN do and CAN test, but I think it's a fair pick. I do think they go for myths that make them say "naawwwww... no... really????" rather than take the "well,that's a DUH" ones or "Captain Obvious Misses The Point" ones.

[Hawk one]

[snip]
Other things to add:
* They don't just put in a little token effort, either. These folks try their darndest to get the myths to work. They only give up after exhaustive effort.
[snip]

One good etc. to add:

* They figure out, demonstrate, and explain -why- a myth is either confirmed, plausible, or busted. Such as the quicksand experiment (will humans be fully sucked into it in mere minutes?), where it was revealed that the density of quicksand is big enough that humans will actually float like a buoyant.

[Wowbagger]

Another "etc." to add:

* They use measurement equipment they way they were designed to be used. Compare that to, say, The Ghost Hunters, for example, who seem to abhor instruction manuals and specification sheets.

[CapelDodger]

* They are sometimes suprised at their results, more times than most would like to admit. If a result does not agree with their personal prediction, they "publish" anyway. They don't sweep it under a rug.

If something's cool enough to become a myth, it's cool enough for TV, especially when it works.

Another to add :

* Imaginative practical minds. And the practical skills to go with them.

[rocketdodger]

I have been pretty disappointed in them on certain occaisions, however.

For example, in their katana myths episode, they completely either missed or ignored the documented fact that what gives a well made katana its cutting ability is a slicing action as opposed to a chopping one.

Even more disappointing was that the "expert" they got to demo for them didn't seem to know this either.

[Unalienable]

They make blunders all the time, but like you folks say, it's still entertaining television.

I think their single biggest fault is that they question a myth "It has been said that (X) has happened" and then they test this hypothesis by trying to replicate it, and then conclude that it's "busted" just because they failed to make it happen.

It's true that if they replicate it, they add some credibility to the story that (X) has happened. But if they cannot replicate it, they are still a far way from suggesting that (X) couldn't have happened.

They are clever, but they aren't engineering gods. Just because their Ming Dynasty Astronaut simulator couldn't get off the launchpad (after a day or two of fiddling) doesn't mean that generations of smart Chinese working on the problem couldn't figure it out.

[technoextreme]

They are clever, but they aren't engineering gods. Just because their Ming Dynasty Astronaut simulator couldn't get off the launchpad (after a day or two of fiddling) doesn't mean that generations of smart Chinese working on the problem couldn't figure it out.
No. It does. They had those rocket scientists. If they couldn't get the rocket off the ground it wasn't going to back in the Chinese time period. Not only that but Im fairly certain that their skill levels pretty much blow out anything generations of ancient Chinese scientists had. For crying out loud the myth involved sending a man into space using a chair. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a chair isn't aerodynamic enough. In fact I would hazard a guess that I could bust 3/4 of the myths they perform using pen and paper.
For example, in their katana myths episode, they completely either missed or ignored the documented fact that what gives a well made katana its cutting ability is a slicing action as opposed to a chopping one.Because it doesn't change anything.

Now... the Mythbusters' choices are actually fairly clear. They look for myths were people are claiming that basic laws of physics or physiology are possibly being violated.
Not really. They've done myths before where the truth was all ready known. Flipping a car (Which aparently they've retested) with jet wash was one such myth were they knew it could happen. Bug bomb bomb was another myth that they probably knew was true before they started testing.

[Unalienable]

No. It does. They had those rocket scientists. If they couldn't get the rocket off the ground it wasn't going to back in the Chinese time period.
You either have overconfidence in modern experts, or you underestimate ancient ingenuity.

There are many cases of ancient engineering which were complete mysteries for hundreds of years and we only been able to shed light on them in recent times. Modern engineers don't think like ancient engineers. They think in terms of cranes, chains, and oil--not in terms of slave-power, hemp, and banana peels. If you handicap modern experts so that they have only the materials available to the ancients, you better believe they are going to be highly inept.

By the way, of course I don't believe he went into space, but that's not necessary for the myth to get started. Truth be told, I don't actually even believe the myth at all. Even the idea that the guy could get high enough into the air so that people might believe that he didn't die seems quite farfetched. But I used that an example because even in that preposterous case they still didn't really nail the coffin shut.

[CFLarsen]

Anyway, just now I did a rough tally of the MythBusters' total outcomes (see attached graph).

Please list the outcomes. Which episodes yielded which results?

It got me thinking, could someone look at their results at say 'Wow! See, all those silly people believing in those myths, when they are just a bunch of bunk!', yet another person look at their results and say 'Well, their name is the MythBusters, not the MythConfirmers, so what, did you really expect to see any other result other than the debunking of soft-targets?' ?

Given your history of defending just about any woo belief, it is no wonder you don't mention the obvious:

That the majority of the myths people believe are just that: Myths.

They should be called "MythTesters", but it just doesn't sound as good as "Mythbusters". But, they are really after testing myths, for their validity. They are not just out to bust them.

On the contrary: Adam in particular often expresses a lot of excitement if a myth could be true. In the cases that involve explosions, both Adam and Jamie go out of their way to see if the myths are true.

* Sometimes they get things wrong. (Hey, no one is perfect). But, they own-up to it! They retest and revisit whenever necessary, and sometimes the outcomes could be different. They publish the new results in its place, and talk about what they did wrong before, and what they learned since.

I think they have even re-revisited a couple of myths, because new information came in.

Other things to add:
* They don't just put in a little token effort, either. These folks try their darndest to get the myths to work. They only give up after exhaustive effort.

They are clever, but they aren't engineering gods. Just because their Ming Dynasty Astronaut simulator couldn't get off the launchpad (after a day or two of fiddling) doesn't mean that generations of smart Chinese working on the problem couldn't figure it out.

Could be - but you must remember that the Mythbusters also lean on science of today. They don't just tinker with the stuff, the team (there are many more people involved than just Adam, Jamie, Kari, Grant and Tori) investigate the science behind it, and use it to build their rigs.

Generations of smart Chinese may have been able to figure it out, but the Mythbuster's test also drew on the science accumulated over centuries.

I'll put my money on science over generations of smart Chinese any day.

[MG1962]

Could be - but you must remember that the Mythbusters also lean on science of today. They don't just tinker with the stuff, the team (there are many more people involved than just Adam, Jamie, Kari, Grant and Tori) investigate the science behind it, and use it to build their rigs.

Generations of smart Chinese may have been able to figure it out, but the Mythbuster's test also drew on the science accumulated over centuries.

I'll put my money on science over generations of smart Chinese any day.

But sometimes they do get it very wrong - they have tried the ice bullet twice and failed. However it never seemed to have occured to them to try firing the bullet with an air rifle

And their frozen chicken through the windscreen was interesting - seeing they were trying to refute RAF research on the topic. They did revist this one and finally got it right second time around - so that was something.

And dont get me started on the soliders over the bridge myth - that was easily the biggest dropped ball I have ever seen them do

[CFLarsen]

But sometimes they do get it very wrong - they have tried the ice bullet twice and failed. However it never seemed to have occured to them to try firing the bullet with an air rifle

I haven't seen that one. Was the original claim that it was fired with an air rifle? They take great pains to recreate the myth as it is.

And their frozen chicken through the windscreen was interesting - seeing they were trying to refute RAF research on the topic. They did revist this one and finally got it right second time around - so that was something.

Indeed.

And dont get me started on the soliders over the bridge myth - that was easily the biggest dropped ball I have ever seen them do

What was wrong with that?

[Gravy]

Test results by season start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_1%29

[MG1962]

I haven't seen that one. Was the original claim that it was fired with an air rifle? They take great pains to recreate the myth as it is.



Indeed.



What was wrong with that?

With the ice the bullet, the myth doesn't specify the type of weapon - And as they discovered a regular gun heats too much

With the troops on the bridge - they tested it on a suspension bridge. The first of which were seen in the West in the 19th century, though the only modern example of collapse was 1850 (Angers Bridge). It has been military doctrine since at least the middle ages. I think with a little effort, evidence could date back to the Roman era.

The mythbusters worked from the assumption of harmonics, when the real culprit for wooden bridges is stress from the weight distribution. A modern example of this was the Kansas City collapse - Although already dangerously overloaded due to an unintentional design flaw, the collapse was caused by the people on hanging bridge dancing in time with the music

[Big Les]

But sometimes they do get it very wrong - they have tried the ice bullet twice and failed. However it never seemed to have occured to them to try firing the bullet with an air rifle

Now that would be interesting. Air weapons seem to be pretty much off the American radar, but they're historically very popular here and several C19th militaries either trialled or (one of them) briefly adopted, gas or air-powered rifles. I'd love to seem them revisit with a custom air weapon.

Bear in mind though that they were focussing upon the myth as it appears in the movies which have never IIRC featured anything but a conventional firearm firing custom "ice-bullets". They then thought to vary the bullet material, but not the weapon, which I agree was a failure of imagination.

And their frozen chicken through the windscreen was interesting - seeing they were trying to refute RAF research on the topic. They did revist this one and finally got it right second time around - so that was something.

That's the thing, they are only a TV show, but they are far more responible and intellectually honest than any other show - they come back and try again. The constraints of TV are many, so I think they make a pretty good fist of it. At least they don't outright fake their "experiments" like Brainiac have done.

And dont get me started on the soliders over the bridge myth - that was easily the biggest dropped ball I have ever seen them do

Can't pass comment on that - too physicsy for my little brain. But the same applies - they try hard, they get some vaguely meaningful results at least some of the time. That's pretty good for TV.

As to the katana slicing v chopping thing, I agree that in the tests I remember them doing (machine-gun barrel, another sword etc), simulating a biomechanically-delivered cut by a professional wouldn't have made any difference. On the other hand based on what was shown they seem to have been a bit misled on the "expert" they chose. Do bear in mind that production exigencies often see expert advice sidelined, even if Adam and Jamie would want to defer to said expert.

[MG1962]

That's the thing, they are only a TV show, but they are far more responible and intellectually honest than any other show - they come back and try again. The constraints of TV are many, so I think they make a pretty good fist of it. At least they don't outright fake their "experiments" like Brainiac have done..

With the chicken story, I didn't see dishonesty - but a sense of lazyness. I saw a documentary a few years ago in which the RAF spent a fortune developing an anti-bird stike windscreen. When the test rig was ready to go, they hauled of to the local supermaket, bought frozen chickens out of the freezer - Fired them at the windscreens and destroyed every one of them. For the life of them they could not figure out how they had gotten the whole process so wrong - Finally they repeated the experiements with thawed chickens, and the new windscreens worked a complete treat

[volatile]

----

[tkingdoll]

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.

[my_wan]

Nice responses Wowbagger...

[wahrheit]

I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.

[CFLarsen]

Test results by season start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_1%29

Excellent!

A more accurate statistic, derived from all available episodes:

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/mythbust.jpg

There were a number of different other categories which I haven't included:

Busted (for now): 1
Busted (unofficially): 2
Busted with caveat: 1
Busted/Confirmed: 2
Busted/Plausible/Confirmed: 1
Busted/Plausible: 4
Inconclusive evidence towards confirmation: 1
Not tested/not practical: 1
Not tested: 1
Partly busted: 4
Partly confirmed: 4
Partly plausible: 4
Partly re-busted/partly confirmed: 1
Re-busted: 18
Re-confirmed: 1

The latter group shows the Mythbusters' unwillingness to shoehorn a result into a specific group.

With the ice the bullet, the myth doesn't specify the type of weapon - And as they discovered a regular gun heats too much

If it doesn't specify the type of weapon, it is difficult to test - just how many types of weapon should they have tested?

It may be a bit too much to re-visit the myth for a single type of weapon, but you can write in and ask, if you like.

With the troops on the bridge - they tested it on a suspension bridge. The first of which were seen in the West in the 19th century, though the only modern example of collapse was 1850 (Angers Bridge). It has been military doctrine since at least the middle ages. I think with a little effort, evidence could date back to the Roman era.

Wanna make that effort? ;)

The mythbusters worked from the assumption of harmonics, when the real culprit for wooden bridges is stress from the weight distribution. A modern example of this was the Kansas City collapse - Although already dangerously overloaded due to an unintentional design flaw, the collapse was caused by the people on hanging bridge dancing in time with the music

If you are talking about the
Hyatt Regency walkway collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse), it was due to structural design, not people dancing.

[Molinaro]

I don't think it's right to read much into those percentages. The myths tested are not a random sample of existing myths.

It's the one's that are: physicaly possible to test, economicaly feasable to test, entertaining to watch, socialy acceptable with respect to vulgarity, crimminal acts, etc..

[technoextreme]

You either have overconfidence in modern experts, or you underestimate ancient ingenuity.

There are many cases of ancient engineering which were complete mysteries for hundreds of years and we only been able to shed light on them in recent times. Modern engineers don't think like ancient engineers. They think in terms of cranes, chains, and oil--not in terms of slave-power, hemp, and banana peels. If you handicap modern experts so that they have only the materials available to the ancients, you better believe they are going to be highly inept.

Guess what it's all governed by math my friend. It's all governed by math. No amount of ancient woo thinking that you are suggesting will change the fact that it's mathematically impossible. Remember mr woomeister they couldn't even get the chair off the ground with modern rockets. There are so many reasons why that it becomes an act of stupidity to still believe that it could have happened.
It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.
That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. They don't plan these ratios. They do plan which myths they do but that is more because of the fact that as engineers you can't perform experiments that are impossible.
The mythbusters worked from the assumption of harmonics, when the real culprit for wooden bridges is stress from the weight distribution. A modern example of this was the Kansas City collapse - Although already dangerously overloaded due to an unintentional design flaw, the collapse was caused by the people on hanging bridge dancing in time with the music
That doesn't even make any sense. If it collapsed from weight distrubution then the bridge would collapse even if the soliders were out of cadence.
With the chicken story, I didn't see dishonesty - but a sense of lazyness. I saw a documentary a few years ago in which the RAF spent a fortune developing an anti-bird stike windscreen. When the test rig was ready to go, they hauled of to the local supermaket, bought frozen chickens out of the freezer - Fired them at the windscreens and destroyed every one of them. For the life of them they could not figure out how they had gotten the whole process so wrong - Finally they repeated the experiements with thawed chickens, and the new windscreens worked a complete treat
It wasn't lazyness it was stupidity. It was one of those rare times that they did not understand the physics.

[rocketdodger]

Because it doesn't change anything.

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point. And if so, even if you have the intellect of a cave man, you would figure out that slicing works much better than hacking.

Therefore I am kind of at a loss trying to understand your statement, technoextreme.

[TX50]

Wanna make that effort? ;)



There is no ancient evidence that the Roman army marched in step at all,
so proving that they broke step when crossing bridges will be rather difficult.
Vegetius in book I of "Epitoma rei militari" mentions different lengths
of pace but doesn't say if they marched in step. Modern Roman soldier
reenactors merely assume that they marched in step.

[rocketdodger]

As to the katana slicing v chopping thing, I agree that in the tests I remember them doing (machine-gun barrel, another sword etc), simulating a biomechanically-delivered cut by a professional wouldn't have made any difference.

How do you figure?

[technoextreme]

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point.

Warning. Warning. Bad analogy alert. Bad analogy alert. Using your logic in comparing apples to oranges (Cutting a tomato to Cutting a sword with another sword) the mythbusters got it right. I don't do anything idiotic with the tomato. I take that knife and slice it straight down exactly how the mythbuster did it.

[Bikewer]

I post regularly on the Mythbusters bulletin board (same handle) as I have some background in ballistics, weaponry, archery, and so forth.
It's amazing how many people believe that a given "myth" (urban legends, for the most part) just MUST be true.

For instance,the "Robin Hood" arrow-splitting thing. The guys set up an initial test, and were quite unable to produce the desired results. Numbers of people familiar with period archery wrote in, pointing out that the equipment used was totally unlike what the real Mr. Hood (if he existed) might have used.
So, in a revisit, they produced replica period arrows (quite well done, actually) and tried everything again, and again had absolutely negative results.
Still, about twice a week, someone will post some reason why it just has to work....

Likewise with the "sword slicing the machine gun barrel" myth. We still get posts from people who just refuse to believe it didn't happen. If only they used a "real" period sword....(priceless heirlooms, for the most part)
We've had metallurgists and engineers on the board explaining in detail why this can't happen, but still....
I have even pointed out that the myth supersedes the Second World War. This came out of the Philippine Insurrection, around the turn of the century. (earliest I know of, at any rate) Moro tribesmen, wielding the traditional Kris, supposedly would cut through the barrels of GI M1903 Springfield rifles.
Nonsense, of course. It's just a propaganda device; the brave third-world soldier defeating the modern, technologically-advanced warrior. Or in the case of the Japanese, "traditional" martial arts defeating the craven Western powers.

[technoextreme]

(priceless heirlooms, for the most part)
Dude. Have you watched the show. They are willing to blow up anything. Didn't they destroy that old fashion rifle? Im not sure if it was true but they did call it an antique.

[rocketdodger]

Likewise with the "sword slicing the machine gun barrel" myth. We still get posts from people who just refuse to believe it didn't happen.
...snip...
Or in the case of the Japanese, "traditional" martial arts defeating the craven Western powers.

I am in no way making the claim that the myths are in fact true. I am simply stating that ignoring the contribution a slicing action makes to a blades ability to cut is a huge mistake -- in my opinion, it renders the entire experiment inapplicable.

If they really knew what they were doing, they would simply buy a top notch sword and get a top notch expert and tell him to try his hardest to cut another sword or slice off a rifle barrel. At least then, when the myth is busted, nobody can claim that they didn't try their hardest. As it is, they left way too much room for "what if they had done this, or that, etc." This is a complaint of mine in general with the show.

[CFLarsen]

There is no ancient evidence that the Roman army marched in step at all,
so proving that they broke step when crossing bridges will be rather difficult.
Vegetius in book I of "Epitoma rei militari" mentions different lengths
of pace but doesn't say if they marched in step. Modern Roman soldier
reenactors merely assume that they marched in step.

It looks better on film, yes. :)

[Big Les]

How do you figure?

As I say, I can't remember beyond the MG barrel and the other sword blade, exactly what they tested, but with those two test media, they showed that a straight chop caused damage, but nothing like enough to actually cut through the target. A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. If you're thinking of other tests that I've forgotten about, remind me what they were.

[technoextreme]

If they really knew what they were doing, they would simply buy a top notch sword and get a top notch expert and tell him to try his hardest to cut another sword or slice off a rifle barrel. At least then, when the myth is busted, nobody can claim that they didn't try their hardest. As it is, they left way too much room for "what if they had done this, or that, etc." This is a complaint of mine in general with the show.
I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

[tkingdoll]

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. They don't plan these ratios. They do plan which myths they do but that is more because of the fact that as engineers you can't perform experiments that are impossible.



Then you need to read more. :rolleyes:

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. I assure you. Television is never made with unknown quantities and it is planned to very careful patterns to ensure maximum retention of viewers. You think the show is live or something?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For instance,the "Robin Hood" arrow-splitting thing. The guys set up an initial test, and were quite unable to produce the desired results. Numbers of people familiar with period archery wrote in, pointing out that the equipment used was totally unlike what the real Mr. Hood (if he existed) might have used.
So, in a revisit, they produced replica period arrows (quite well done, actually) and tried everything again, and again had absolutely negative results.
Still, about twice a week, someone will post some reason why it just has to work....


Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5481577107553379137&q=arrow+splits+arrow&total=70&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

[Big Les]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

No, he wants them to do what proper experimental archaeologists and historians do - use weapons and media as close to historical parameters as possible, to eliminate the chance of something happening that you haven't accounted for. Modern homogenous steel is very different in composition, and forging methods/heat treatments ideally would be considered too.

The thing is, in the context of a TV show, it's not necessary. The chances of an ancestral folded katana in the hands of a modern tameshigiri practitioner being even slightly better at cutting another weapon or a steel gun barrel are simply not worth the time, effort, money, and valuable screen-time. And you wouldn't want to do it anyway, as the antique nihonto would be trashed.

IOW, admirable sentiment, but not applicable in this context. It's a TV show - one with exceptionally high standards, but a TV show nonetheless.

[In My Spare Time]

Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5481577107553379137&q=arrow+splits+arrow&total=70&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?

[Thabiguy]

Okay, may I ask an on-topic language question here?

Everybody in this thread seems to be using the word 'myth' as if it meant 'hypothesis'; something that can be tested and that can be true. I didn't know that it had that meaning. I thought that - as in my native language - 'myth' could only mean either an ancient, typically supernatural story that is either fictitious or unverifiable at best, or alternately, a widely held but false belief. In my native language at least, a myth is by definition never known to be true, and cannot become confirmed; if a belief turns out to be true, then it is proven that it is not a myth after all, but a fact. A 'confirmed myth' or a 'true myth' would be oxymorons.

Does the word 'myth' have a different meaning in English? Can it refer to something that has been confirmed? Do phrases such as '10 popular myths about cars that are true' make sense?

[wahrheit]

Okay, may I ask an on-topic language question here?

Everybody in this thread seems to be using the word 'myth' as if it meant 'hypothesis'; something that can be tested and that can be true. I didn't know that it had that meaning. I thought that - as in my native language - 'myth' could only mean either an ancient, typically supernatural story that is either fictitious or unverifiable at best, or alternately, a widely held but false belief. In my native language at least, a myth is by definition never known to be true, and cannot become confirmed; if a belief turns out to be true, then it is proven that it is not a myth after all, but a fact. A 'confirmed myth' or a 'true myth' would be oxymorons.

Does the word 'myth' have a different meaning in English? Can it refer to something that has been confirmed? Do phrases such as '10 popular myths about cars that are true' make sense?

Myth in MythBusters translates to rumor, (urban) legend for me. In other words, stuff that many people think is or might be true - so let's check it out.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

[Big Les]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say; "Evidence?"

:boxedin:

[technoextreme]

Then you need to read more. :rolleyes:

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. Really now. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Do you have any proof that they do this? Looking at the results they tend to go against planing because the results have become really freaky. I don't think you can plan for a story being busted, plausible, confirmed at the same time.
What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?
I would say your lying.
No, he wants them to do what proper experimental archaeologists and historians do - use weapons and media as close to historical parameters as possible, to eliminate the chance of something happening that you haven't accounted for. Modern homogenous steel is very different in composition, and forging methods/heat treatments ideally would be considered too.
That's what I said. Also, it would make the odds of it happening worst.

[wahrheit]

Really now. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Do you have any proof that they do this? Looking at the results they tend to go against planing because the results become really freaky.


Before you repeatedly accuse someone of being an idiot, you might check on the facts, a.k.a. real life.

I don't know if Teek (tkingdoll) has any proof for what she's saying, but for one, there would be me.

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

You might reconsider your language before using words like "idiotic". Especially, since you don't seem to know what you are talking about, except for watching television, as opposed to making it.

[technoextreme]

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

Can you please provide a rational that makes sense? There is none that I can think of. The outcome of the myth really has nothing to do with anything. The entertainment value of the myth comes from the myth itself.

[wahrheit]

Can you please provide a rational that makes sense? Face it there is none. The outcome of the myth really has nothing to do with anything. The entertainment value of the myth comes from the myth itself. Even then they've had quite a few duds.

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

[Gregory]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

But how do they plan these ratios when they don't know whether something is true or not until it's tested? I suppose with cheap and easy myths like the ice bullet one, they could do testing before hand, but things like using dynamite to clear out cement mixers? Are you saying that they knew before they started shooting whether that would work? If so, how?

[In My Spare Time]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?

I would say; "Evidence?"

:boxedin:

me too.

[wahrheit]

But how do they plan these ratios when they don't know whether something is true or not until it's tested? I suppose with cheap and easy myths like the ice bullet one, they could do testing before hand, but things like using dynamite to clear out cement mixers?

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season. Tape one or two back-ups if there's enough money. Then you are pretty sure what will be aired next year.

The last show I personally was involved with that had anything to do with "miracle", i.e. more or less unknown outcome, was produced almost a year before airing the episodes.

Again, I do not know how MythBusters is produced, and I'm not saying any outcome would be faked (though this would be normal in most other formats), I'm just trying to give a general idea how it works.

[technoextreme]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.
Ahhh you see this is why I feel it's a bad argument. I know if Buster was supposed to be propelled out of a culvert it will happen. I don't think people care how it happens.
- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoor
Just as a side note. I agree with you on this. I never said that cost and ability to accomplish them were not a factor. There is proof that they have done myths that they originally thought they couldn't do. I remember reading that they had done the small scale testing of being sucked by a train but couldn't find anyone to help them on the full scale. I just don't think they perform the experiments with the assumption that they are trying to create a distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths.

[wahrheit]

Ahhh you see this is why I feel it's a bad argument. I know if Buster was supposed to be propelled out of a culvert it will happen. I don't think people care how it happens.

Sorry, I don't understand this post, I'm afraid you will have to put it in simpler English for me.

[technoextreme]

Sorry, I don't understand this post, I'm afraid you will have to put it in simpler English for me.
It was a reference to an episode of Mythbusters. The myth involved the possibility of someone being propelled out of a giant drainage pipe with gasoline. So they tried and they discovered that it was pretty much impossible. Now if they had ended the show I agree it would be really boring. What they ended up doing was turning the drainage pipe into a giant cannon. They sealed a crash test dummy into a sabot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot) and then sent it flying with a large amount of gunpowder. If the results are boring they will spice it up even if it has nothing to do with the myth.

[tkingdoll]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.

[CapelDodger]

Maybe you misunderstood. I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode. Think of it this way: Let's say each and every myth would be debunked in that show. Do you really think anybody would enjoy watching it? Of course the outcome of the myth is important. It's like the punch line of a joke.

The outcome isn't important at all. It's a poor punch-line that's revealed before your very eyes, which is the stuff we're watching.

I don't think you understand the appeal of MythBusters ...

[CapelDodger]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?

[tkingdoll]

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that.

What keeps your favourite show favourite? What makes it your favourite show in the first place?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?

The most sensible answer to that question is 'the one the next season has'.

If every single myth was busted I assure you they would lose viewers because the show would be predictable. If every single myth was confirmed, ditto. However, I'd say that a 'busted' conclusion is likely to be in the majority because those are more fun and lead to more water-cooler conversations than the others. I also assure you that the ratio, just like the running order of the episodes, is not left to chance. There are many outcomes which can be predicted on paper way before building the exploding kajigga.

[tsig]

wahrheit, you may well be wasting your time. My experiences of trying to explain television to people who know nothing about it is that they are usually extremely allergic to learning what a cynical medium it is. Especially when it comes to favourite shows.



Why keep wasting our time then? If we are too stupid to understand then you are more stupid for explaining.

[tkingdoll]

Why keep wasting our time then? If we are too stupid to understand then you are more stupid for explaining.

Excuse me? I was referring to wahreit's reply to technoextreme's posts. My own replies were to CapelDodger's posts, his tone being a tad more reasonable than technoextreme's.

I'd be interested to see where I said anyone was too stupid to understand. Feel free to put words into my mouth though, the fact that my posts are right here for everyone to read makes you look, well...you work it out.

[JoeEllison]

The only "bias" I expect is towards making a profitable product. That means entertaining, not too expensive, and not so dangerous that they can't get the insurance guys to sign off on it.

[DRBUZZ0]

Be it a sitcom or MythBusters, the punters just want favourite shows. What could possibly be different?

So anyway, off the top of your head, what "distribution of plausible/confirmed/busted myths" do you imagine its audience demands?


Okay, to be fair, the guys on mythbusters are indeed... not unlike they are on television when they're in real life. I had a drink with Tori and I spoke to adam enough and know enough who did at TAM to know that the show is not complete acting. These guys were actually not really tv-types when they started off. They had been in the industry but not in that capacity. And there has been mention that they are a bit peeved from time to time by the fact that the producers and network execs limit things. But all in all, it's not as synthetic as you might think it could be.

It's a "reality show" yeah, but less sucky than most out there. They managed to find a couple good real characters and work with that. I think that is part of the appeal to fans and such. The show seems to have gotten bigger than they expected.


But as far as bias with Myths, I'm not sure there's one in favor of bust/confirm. The show is "Mythbusters" not "factbusters" so if it turns out a proported myth is true, then it isn't a myth. The point is basically to figure out which need to be busted.

Their science is actually pretty good, most of the time. It's not always worthy of peer review publication and there have been some incidents where it wasn't so good. But I definately have found some experiments to be very telling of stuff I didn't know.

If they have a bias in favor of anything they do take some of the Myths further than they need to. On occasion it becomes pretty obvious from the getgo that it isn't gona happen, but they go through all the way, using how ever much explosives and whatnot they need.

I think if you compare it to most popular shows on the tube it does pretty damn well.

[my_wan]

What if I told you I have seen it done with wooden arrows?
I would say; "Evidence?"

:boxedin:
me too.

Actually it can be done but it is more trick than skill or technique. The arrow you split must have a directional grain that runs all the way down the shaft. In this way if you ever do hit the back of it the split will actually direct the shot arrow down the center of it. The grain in most woods is neither consistent or straight enough to do it. Unsuitable grain defects will insure it's impossible even in the absurd conditions of a perfectly shot perfectly stiff arrow.

Anyone here ever chopped would to keep warm?

[JoeEllison]

Anyone here ever chopped would to keep warm?

No, but I've chopped WOOD a time or two. :D

[Pyrts]

A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. .

It wouldn't. They were using the slice cut (the sword hits and the arm motion goes down and to the side in a very fast and smooth manner.) You can wave-and-whack with those, but you're not going to do much damage with them.

I took fencing and I studied swordwork for awhile -- the technique was correct. Watch any old Toshira Mufune movie to see the beautiful classic form... same thing that their demonstrators were doing.

[Wowbagger]

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.
I, for one, will buy the idea that they try to plan a ratio of busted and confirmed myths to air, in advance.

However, I would not go so far as to accuse them of sticking to those biaes when actually doing the tests, unless somone brings forth evidence that they do.
I am sure the filmed ratio gets a little askew, when unexpected test results occur. But, perhaps not often enough to be detrimental to their "plans".

Although, I have to wonder: If they do plan the ratio, do they also plan how many are going to be "plausible"? That would seem a bit odd.


They are clever, but they aren't engineering gods. Just because their Ming Dynasty Astronaut simulator couldn't get off the launchpad (after a day or two of fiddling) doesn't mean that generations of smart Chinese working on the problem couldn't figure it out. I think the myth spread because its perpetrators' understanding of the physics involved was much too basic.

The Mythbusters were able to demonstrate that it takes a lot more effort to fling an emperor into space, than most laymen would assume. The myth is Busted, because reality is not as simple as the simple innocence the myth takes on.

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season. Tape one or two back-ups if there's enough money. Then you are pretty sure what will be aired next year.
Could be true. But, that does not imply bias in their testing practices.

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that. Reality Television is an oxymoron.

* They use measurement equipment they way they were designed to be used. Compare that to, say, The Ghost Hunters, for example, who seem to abhor instruction manuals and specification sheets. I am self-reiterating this point, because I realized it could be one of the strongest arguments against the Mythbusters being biased.

There is a lot of room for judgement, when one uses measuring equipment in ways it was not meant to be used. Hence, the Ghost Hunters could "judge" that there might be a spirit in the room.

But, with the Mythbusters, there is no judgement. Assuming the measurement equipment is not faulty, the results are factual, not merely opinion.

Nice responses Wowbagger... Aw shucks, twerp nuttin'.

[Bikewer]

Hehe....Jerome da Gnome posted the infamous "fat Korean" video which has been posted on the Mythbusters board approxomately 500 times. As the other poster noted, the fellow is shooting into a tube.

Here's a few things to consider with splitting the arrow, that folks with no archery background (and perhaps more specifically, no period archery background) might not be aware of:

First, the only sort of point which would have even a ghost of a chance of splitting the arrow would be a broadhead. Commonly used in warfare at the time, true. But Robin was shooting at a competition, in much the same manner modern target archers do. No broadheads, please; the rangemaster would have a conniption. Not only tears up the rollled-straw target, but the very devil to get out.
Robin would have been shooting a "bodkin" or "pile" point for competition, roughly analogous to a modern target point. The Mythbusters found out very early that target points were utterly useless for splitting.

Arrows with "self" nocks were used in the test. A simple slot cut into the wood across the grain, often reinforced with a binding of sinew or cordage. These were common, but for both war and target a horn nock would have been used. For the warbows, drawing 90-100 pounds, a self nock is not safe. It can split. The horn insert provides needed strength.
For target work, the horn nock provides a smooth release.
(Again, I'm referring to period weapons)
A horn nock would almost guarantee that the arrow would not split; horn is very tough indeed.
One more thing: If Robin did use a broadhead, we must consider that it was spinning. Arrows spin, you know, that's what the fletching does. With the arrow spinning, the chance of the two-edged broadhead aligning itself exactly with the grain of the arrow's shaft is.....Small.

As to the comment about the boys being willing to sacrifice a "vintage" rifle, I believe it was a reproduction. The sorts of swords we are talking about here are indeed priceless heirlooms,
held by Japanese families as a remembrance of Samurai glory. They are often valued in the range of millions of dollars....
Not needed, however.
As our metallurgist friends point out, modern steels are superior to any of the legendary steels produced by the Japanese swordsmiths, the Toledo "Damascus" swordsmiths, or anyone else.
The blades produced by these disparate groups were made the way they were to make the best of a bad situation, as it were. The constant folding and forging removed many of the impurities that plagued these early steels.
Modern steel alloys are superior in toughness, hardness, and flexibility to any of the much-vaunted blades of our ancestors.

[rocketdodger]

As I say, I can't remember beyond the MG barrel and the other sword blade, exactly what they tested, but with those two test media, they showed that a straight chop caused damage, but nothing like enough to actually cut through the target. A slicing or draw-cut action would actually be less efficient in a metal-on-metal scenario. You're maintaining edge contact for longer, but applying the same energy over a longer period of time. Works well against flesh, living bone, and to a lesser extent fabric, but not metal.

But I'm no physicist. I'd be interested to know how a replicated slice could have improved their results and brought them anywhere near a "confirmed" or even "plausible" for those two tests. If you're thinking of other tests that I've forgotten about, remind me what they were.

I agree a slicing action would be less efficient in metal-on-metal, but only if the hardness of the metals was comparable. In this case a katana has an edge that is harder than a rifle barrel, so slicing would still accomplish something. After all, thats how a hack-saw works, right? I can easily see a katana slice making a decent sized gouge in a rifle barrel -- nothing near cutting all the way through, probably not even more than 25% through, but it would still be much more impressive results than they got with their setup.

As a sword fanatic, I was just unimpressed by the treatment they gave the topic. I don't care if stupid myths like this are busted -- I don't believe them myself. What I do care about is someone misrepresenting the damaging ability of a well constructed blade. Even if the myths are busted, seeing a katana do serious damage is good for the cause. If I didn't already know better, after seeing that episode I would have come away with an idea that katanas are pretty lousy weapons.

[rocketdodger]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

No.

I actually do not care for antique swords. Modern swords are infinitely better.

As I said in my reply to les, the point of contention I have with mythbusters is that, while debunking a myth that is obviously just a myth and not reality, they misrepresented the katana's ability to cut sh--.

I am sure you know what I am talking about -- having someone, who is not an expert, try to do something in the context of a topic you care much about, proclaim defeat before exhausting the resources available to them.

Its like watching a guy play a video game using your favorite character, who ends up getting his butt kicked -- its just frustrating to see someone misrepresent the ability of something that is important to you.

[wahrheit]

Seems some people interpret quite a few things into posts which never were there in the first place.

1) I never made any comment regarding a specific episode of MB or it's outcome

2) I never said they would plan the outcome of a test, I said they will do everything to NOT being surprised by the outcome, so that they can plan a good, dramatic, entertaining season of episodes.

[alfaniner]

I'm not involved in the production of MythBusters, but this is how it would typically work:

- Make a list of myths that most probably are true
- Make a list of myths that most probably are false
- Make a list of myths with an unknown result

- Make a list of myths which are expensive to reproduce and film
- Make a list of myths which are easy to reproduce, cheap

- Make a list of myths which need to be filmed during good weather outdoors
- Make a list of myths which can be filmed anytime during the year indoors

- Discuss all of the above with the network, hosts, their schedule, the bean counters etc.

Take the above lists, and plan for the next season...

I imagine that all that is done, but not prioritized in that order.

[wahrheit]

I imagine that all that is done,
And lot's more.
but not prioritized in that order.
I didn't imply any order. :confused:

[ponderingturtle]

They should be called "MythTesters", but it just doesn't sound as good as "Mythbusters". But, they are really after testing myths, for their validity. They are not just out to bust them.

The Mythbusters' conclusions are based on what is self-evident in each test. They really don't make any judgement calls - it either works or it does not.
And, when their answer is not quite clear enough, they admit it is "plausible". They don't shoehorn it into "busted" or "confirmed". More testing might be necessary, in that case.

Other things to add:
* They don't just put in a little token effort, either. These folks try their darndest to get the myths to work. They only give up after exhaustive effort.

* They are sometimes suprised at their results, more times than most would like to admit. If a result does not agree with their personal prediction, they "publish" anyway. They don't sweep it under a rug.

* Anyone with the proper resources and training (if necessary) can try to duplicate their results. They are out there for the community to scrutinize. They do not conduct their efforts in secret labs.

* Sometimes they get things wrong. (Hey, no one is perfect). But, they own-up to it! They retest and revisit whenever necessary, and sometimes the outcomes could be different. They publish the new results in its place, and talk about what they did wrong before, and what they learned since.

* Etc.

They have also tackeled documented events that get passed around as myths, but are real events. Not sure if they do it so much now but that was part of their orrigional format.

[ponderingturtle]

I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.

So you agree with her(it seemed to be) that they will gimic their equipement and experiment to get the desired results? Or is it an issue of editing the experiments together?

[wahrheit]

So you agree with her(it seemed to be) that they will gimic their equipement and experiment to get the desired results? Or is it an issue of editing the experiments together?

No, not at all, please read my posts above. I am talking about how a TV show is planned. You simply would not randomly pick 12 myths, shoot them, spend a lot of time and money, and then be surprised when the network guy says: "Uh, kinda boring this time, isn't it. All 12 myths turned out to be true. I don't think we want to air that."

[ponderingturtle]

I'm assuming you wanted them to test the myth with a sword that some monk in walla walla woo folded a thousand times to make the ultimate sword of ultimate destiny. It's not necessary because technology supplanted the monk a long time ago. Stop attributing mythical properties to these dam swords. There is no difference in quality.

Well I must admit I question the quality of their replicas when they showed up with a 15 lbs Claymore.

[ponderingturtle]

Then you need to read more. :rolleyes:

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. I assure you. Television is never made with unknown quantities and it is planned to very careful patterns to ensure maximum retention of viewers. You think the show is live or something?

So when they have had unexpected results, they are lieing about that?

[ponderingturtle]

Before you repeatedly accuse someone of being an idiot, you might check on the facts, a.k.a. real life.

I don't know if Teek (tkingdoll) has any proof for what she's saying, but for one, there would be me.

I've been producing television shows, and if you really think nobody at that big telly company has been done some thinking and planning regarding the ratio between busted and confirmed myths, you must be very naive.

You might reconsider your language before using words like "idiotic". Especially, since you don't seem to know what you are talking about, except for watching television, as opposed to making it.

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

[wahrheit]

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

Again, could you please read my posts before coming to wrong conclusions? See #48, for example: "I'm not saying the producers would fake the outcome of an episode."

[ponderingturtle]

As our metallurgist friends point out, modern steels are superior to any of the legendary steels produced by the Japanese swordsmiths, the Toledo "Damascus" swordsmiths, or anyone else.
The blades produced by these disparate groups were made the way they were to make the best of a bad situation, as it were. The constant folding and forging removed many of the impurities that plagued these early steels.
Modern steel alloys are superior in toughness, hardness, and flexibility to any of the much-vaunted blades of our ancestors.


This is very true, hell steel today is much better in those regards than steel from 20 years ago. Not sure entirely about Wootz steel though, with its hard granules in a softer background I thought it was unusualy well suited to cutting soft materials.

[ponderingturtle]

No, not at all, please read my posts above. I am talking about how a TV show is planned. You simply would not randomly pick 12 myths, shoot them, spend a lot of time and money, and then be surprised when the network guy says: "Uh, kinda boring this time, isn't it. All 12 myths turned out to be true. I don't think we want to air that."

Then why are you not questioning Teek when she makes that assertion?

[Elizabeth I]

So you agree with her(it seemed to be) that they will gimic their equipement and experiment to get the desired results? Or is it an issue of editing the experiments together?

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

Have you ever seen the show? The whole gang has an admitted predilection for dramatic results, so if a myth is busted, THEY SAY SO, CLEARLY, then go on to set up conditions that can make that myth's dramatic result possible. They do it just for fun and for the entertainment value of the whole thing. But I don't believe they fudge their results or lie about them.

It would be boring if every myth was "busted" or "confirmed." Why would you bother to watch? You would know how every test was going to turn out. As far as ratios of busted/plausible/confirmed outcomes are concerned, the shows are taped, so a number of tests can be combined in a show to achieve whatever mix of results is desired. It's a matter of entertaining the audience.

That is all Teek and Wahrhreit (sp?) are trying to tell you.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

Nobody has said that. However do you think the show would have got commissioned if its first series had confirmed every myth they tested? Would it have got recommissioned?

Do you think they took that chance, or do you think they took a range of myths, some of them likely to be confirmed, some likely to be busted?

Do you think they plan the split between likely true/likely false to give a ratio that makes for entertaining (or more accurately profitable) TV?

If you start with broadly the right ratio, then a few surprise results is no big deal. Firstly, the "best" percentage is really a range (nobody is really going to see a huge difference between 65% busted and 70%) so you can afford to be wrong in your predictions without real harm. If you are wrong too often (so that you are busting 90% of the myths after half the filming), then change the mix of those myths you are still to film to include more likely to be confirmed. Mix over the series comes out reasonable and you simply show them in a different order to that they were filmed in.

[wahrheit]

Then why are you not questioning Teek when she makes that assertion?

I didn't understand her that way, for me it was all about the best possible planning of a ratio between busted/confirmed episodes, the topic of the original post. Though I get what you mean, her first sentence of her first post.

This is what I wrote:
I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.

And that's what I meant. And it doesn't necessarily have to be 100% the "predicted", wished for outcome. But at least the general direction, like "2/3 busted, 1/3 confirmed would be good. What do you guys think?"

[ponderingturtle]

Have you ever seen the show? The whole gang has an admitted predilection for dramatic results, so if a myth is busted, THEY SAY SO, CLEARLY, then go on to set up conditions that can make that myth's dramatic result possible. They do it just for fun and for the entertainment value of the whole thing. But I don't believe they fudge their results or lie about them.

It would be boring if every myth was "busted" or "confirmed." Why would you bother to watch? You would know how every test was going to turn out. As far as ratios of busted/plausible/confirmed outcomes are concerned, the shows are taped, so a number of tests can be combined in a show to achieve whatever mix of results is desired. It's a matter of entertaining the audience.

That is all Teek and Wahrhreit (sp?) are trying to tell you.

Teek went beyond that claim. She talked about forcing myths to fit the script.

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody has said that.

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities.

You know absolutely nothing about television whatsoever. The entire series is planned in advance, with a careful distribution of outcomes. I assure you. Television is never made with unknown quantities and it is planned to very careful patterns to ensure maximum retention of viewers. You think the show is live or something?

An uncertain and unscripted outcome is exactly what they would never want in Teeks definition. That they have had outcomes that where not what they appeared to predict means either they do not script it totaly and there is unpredictable results in the series, something Teek claims is impossible, or that those in the series are lying about their ideas as to its possibility.

However do you think the show would have got commissioned if its first series had confirmed every myth they tested? Would it have got recommissioned?

Do you think they took that chance, or do you think they took a range of myths, some of them likely to be confirmed, some likely to be busted?

Do you think they plan the split between likely true/likely false to give a ratio that makes for entertaining (or more accurately profitable) TV?

If you start with broadly the right ratio, then a few surprise results is no big deal. Firstly, the "best" percentage is really a range (nobody is really going to see a huge difference between 65% busted and 70%) so you can afford to be wrong in your predictions without real harm. If you are wrong too often (so that you are busting 90% of the myths after half the filming), then change the mix of those myths you are still to film to include more likely to be confirmed. Mix over the series comes out reasonable and you simply show them in a different order to that they were filmed in.

That is not what Teek was claiming.

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't understand her that way, for me it was all about the best possible planning of a ratio between busted/confirmed episodes, the topic of the original post. Though I get what you mean, her first sentence of her first post.


See my quotes in the above post. She certainly was makeing all kinds of statements against any kind of honnestly that could be involved.

[DRBUZZ0]

So you agree that they will force the results to fit the script and lie about it to preserve their ratio?

I would highly doubt that. Most of the stuff they do is documented and straight forward enough that it leaves little room for trickery. There are some where they have numbers that they could potentially fake, but it would be hard to make it seem like a catipult could fling a dummy a certain distance when it cannot or vice-versa, unless you resort to just blatent special effects tricks.

There are some examples where the experiment "fails" or just doesn't work as they had hoped or anticipated the first time.

Not to mention that their fans have been known to give them hell when they think that something was left out or done improperly and occasionally force a redo.

In any case, I don't understand why they would need to. The show seems to be pretty compelling and entertaining even when just based on the facts.

[Skeptic Guy]

Gotta' love those Japenesse!!!

Split arrow (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5481577107553379137&q=arrow+splits+arrow&total=70&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

I suggest moving to about the 6 min. mark.

and nothing in that video (which has been posted many, many times on the mythbusters forum) has anything to do with splitting an arrow. He shot an arrow into a narrow, empty tube. Kinda different than putting it through 18 inches of wood without turning.
Also, the subtitles look more Korean than Japanese, no?

Not that it matters, but it is Korean. KBS stands for the "Korean Broadcasting System". And I was going to point out that it was edited and as such, I question whether it actually happened, but Spare Time seems to be familiar with the video and its authenticity or should I say accuracy.

[Skeptic Guy]

I can see where Mythbusters would try to plan what myths they would tackle based on predicted results. They would want to try to get a mix of "busted" and "confirmed" results in a single show, but I really don't think they fake the results to get such a mix. They seem to be surprised at times regarding the results they do get and I don't think they are that good of actors.

I can see that they may shoot a number of "myths" over the course of the season and then put them together in a certain order to provide a good mix of results. The only time that I can see that this might be problematic is when they do their "theme" shows, where all the "myths" share a common theme and it would be difficult to mix and match them over the season. In that case they may shoot a few more segments than is needed for that particular show/theme, but given how they like to blow things up a lot, the expense to do that too often would be prohibitive. In fact, I think they use their love to push the "myths" to a positive result as a useful balance in a particular show that may have had a lot of results that weren't anticipated. The audience loves a good explosion and would forget about the initial, boring results. I know that I do.

[In My Spare Time]

To clarify, I'm not certain of the authenticity of that video. I know it has been posted many times on the Mythbusters forum and that, if authentic, it still has nothing to do with the myth being discussed.

[zooterkin]

Teek went beyond that claim. She talked about forcing myths to fit the script.

No, she didn't. She's talking about how the myths are chosen, not how the myths were tested.

[Big Les]

Well I must admit I question the quality of their replicas when they showed up with a 15 lbs Claymore.

Yikes. I must have missed that little gaffe. 5 or 6 pounds would be more like it. 10 lbs is about as heavy as full-sized two-handed swords got, and those were usually ceremonial.

[CapelDodger]

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that.

How often is this? And how do you know it?

MythBusters is not a science show anyway, it's a form of reality TV. A superior form, obviously.

What keeps your favourite show favourite? What makes it your favourite show in the first place?

I don't have a favourite show. I did for a while when Firefly was showing, and later there was Deadwood, but normally not.

I like MythBusters. I like the people, the action, the conversation, the displays of ingenuity and practical skills. It's not about the conclusion, it's about the testing.

The most sensible answer to that question is 'the one the next season has'.

From a careerist's point of view, I suppose, but otherwise?

If every single myth was busted I assure you they would lose viewers because the show would be predictable. If every single myth was confirmed, ditto.

The show would not be predictable because the show is not about the conclusions.

However, I'd say that a 'busted' conclusion is likely to be in the majority because those are more fun and lead to more water-cooler conversations than the others.

Telegenic and practicable myths will be the ones selected.

I also assure you that the ratio, just like the running order of the episodes, is not left to chance. There are many outcomes which can be predicted on paper way before building the exploding kajigga.

That implies that the MythBusters are taking on myths they know to be already busted. I don't much like what that implies.

The Exploding Toilet : predictable? Opening the Water-Filled Safe : predictable? Car Welds truvks Together in Head-On Crash Horror - fancy doing the math? But they're all sure as heck going on the show.

[T'ai Chi]

Very interesting.

[EventHorizon]

It's almost criminal that this thread has gone this far without a picture of Kari.

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Very interesting.

That's all you have to say?

No comment of your own, no reflection whatsoever - except a non-committing "Very interesting"?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In that case they may shoot a few more segments than is needed for that particular show/theme, but given how they like to blow things up a lot, the expense to do that too often would be prohibitive.

Not necessarily (and I will admit that I have never watched the show here). If you shoot too many for a "themed" programme, how hard would it be to include it in an unthemed programme later in the series?

[ponderingturtle]

No, she didn't. She's talking about how the myths are chosen, not how the myths were tested.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works.

You are saying that she did not mean what she said.

[ponderingturtle]

Yikes. I must have missed that little gaffe. 5 or 6 pounds would be more like it. 10 lbs is about as heavy as full-sized two-handed swords got, and those were usually ceremonial.

I don't think it was a gaffe, it might well have been the weight of the sword they had. I just think it might say something about the accuracy of their swords.

The point was they where testing a sword three times heavier than a katana against one. That is not a real situation.

[ponderingturtle]

That implies that the MythBusters are taking on myths they know to be already busted. I don't much like what that implies.

The Exploding Toilet : predictable? Opening the Water-Filled Safe : predictable? Car Welds truvks Together in Head-On Crash Horror - fancy doing the math? But they're all sure as heck going on the show.

The man falling through the high rise window? They knew that was true

The man killed by the rogue washing machine and explosion of dog urine and baking soda? Come on they knew that was crap.

Knowing the result beforehand does not mean there will not be surprises, but they often do know the result because they are simply not possible.

[Michael Redman]

For the predetermined scripted ratio theory to be plausible, you would have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches every episode, and sees all episodes the exact same number of times in reruns, and probably in the same order they appeared originally. Any other viewing pattern destroys the effect of the carefully scripted ratio. So why bother?

Also, I think it would quite obviously be far more complicated, difficult, and expensive to decide beforehand exactly how each experiment would turn out, and then try to force the results into the desired outcome, than to simply line up experiments in a rough distribution, and let the chips fall where they may, and selecting the best results to air.

It is possible that simply testing the myths that will make the best TV results in a satisfactory distribution of outcomes. It is also possible that they put in extra effort to select myths to test, and tested outcomes to air, in a distribution they think will be appealing. However, to suggest that they predetermine an exact ratio beforehand, and, more particularly, that they script the outcomes of specific experiments to get that ratio, seems like quite an implausible proposition to me. I would like to see some evidence.

[voidx]

Even if you don't know anything about swordsmanship, or history, or physics, you should at least have used a knife to cut things in your life, at some point. And if so, even if you have the intellect of a cave man, you would figure out that slicing works much better than hacking.

Therefore I am kind of at a loss trying to understand your statement, technoextreme.
To be honest most swords use a snap through chopping motion to achieve the cut. So does the Katana. Its how the edge geometry works best. Katana's use a slicing motion also, because that was what they were designed for based on armour etc.

European swords do not use a slicing action to cut, they just a snap through chopping action. Its all about velocity and the edge geometry. A chop exerts much more force than a slice.

Now given, they could have put a spring in the mechanism that would have simulated some follow through on the Katana. This would have increased the velocity it was travelling at. However, what cuts is the geometry of the blade, how straight it hits the target, and how fast (not "hard") its going.

I think their mechanism may have got the blade moving faster that a human would be able to, but not by much. A direct right angle blow has the most force behind it, if it couldn't shear the gun barrel, then slicing it wouldn't do any better.

Seeing as Eurpean swords had trouble cutting through 14-18 guage steel plate armour, (hence the reason for axes, war hammers, poleaxes and estocs) I am not at all surprised that they couldn't cut through a several inch thick solid piece of metal.

[wahrheit]

For the predetermined scripted ratio theory to be plausible, you would have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches every episode, and sees all episodes the exact same number of times in reruns, and probably in the same order they appeared originally. Any other viewing pattern destroys the effect of the carefully scripted ratio. So why bother?


Not sure if the above is addressed at me, but I never suggested that they predetermine an exact (!) ratio beforehand. (Though it would not surprise me in the least if that was the case.)

The viewing pattern doesn't matter, btw. Of course you do not have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches each episode in the given order etc. The season as such needs some balancing, it doesn't matter if viewer X has seen all episodes in the "correct" order.

[voidx]

I actually do not care for antique swords. Modern swords are infinitely better.

Are you serious? Are you referring to Katana's here? Modern reproductions of european swords are clearly inferior to period pieces. This is overwhelmingly due to the fact that we are rediscovering the techniques (sword and sword-making techniques). How one swings a sword and against what are what help test and determine the quality of a blade. Balance and weight are key. Durability versus how sharp they are is also important. A razor sharp blade is actually quite uncommon, because with an edge so thin, it is easily gouged and damaged, and with so little metal is very difficult to repair. I've handled period european swords at the local museum on several occasions and their balance and weight are far better than modern reproductions.

ETA: I do agree that modern alloys and metals are superior, however, there is a lot more to the construction of a well balanced and useable swords that merely the metal. Hilt, tang, balance, edge geometry, flexibility are all important attributes, and very hard to reproduce exactly. Even more so to test accurately. Can't really go out chopping up humans in fights to test anymore these days now can we :)

[Michael Redman]

Not sure if the above is addressed at me, but I never suggested that they predetermine an exact (!) ratio beforehand. (Though it would not surprise me in the least if that was the case.)

The viewing pattern doesn't matter, btw. Of course you do not have to assume that the audience, on the whole, watches each episode in the given order etc. The season as such needs some balancing, it doesn't matter if viewer X has seen all episodes in the "correct" order.It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).

[voidx]

Yikes. I must have missed that little gaffe. 5 or 6 pounds would be more like it. 10 lbs is about as heavy as full-sized two-handed swords got, and those were usually ceremonial.
In the Western Martial Arts class I help run, people are often suprised to find a longsword weighed only between 2.5-4lbs depending on the period, style length etc. And that longer two-handers and claymores as you say maybe hit 5-6lbs.

I always suggest they go to the local hardware store and swing around a 10lb sledge hammer, and then consider doing it for an hour straight or so :). That usually drives the point home.

[CFLarsen]

Knowing the result beforehand does not mean there will not be surprises, but they often do know the result because they are simply not possible.

On the other hand, they tested the motion detector using a bedsheet. It worked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_4%29#Episode_59_.E2.80.94_.2 2Crimes_and_Myth-Demeanors_2.22)

Probably their best episode.

[wahrheit]

It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.
My understanding was that a certain ratio would be planned. And "scripted", to me, is a term used in context of the actual shooting, editing of a show.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).

If you really believe that the overall ratio of busted/confirmed gets lost only because this or that member of the audience does not see each and every episode, you are wrong in my opinion.

Let's say I missed the last episode of The Simpsons. So what? Let's say I missed several episodes, or watched them on DVD in a different order. So what? This will not make me hate Homer, this will not stop me from liking the program.

Don't forget all the teasers, the press, people talking amongst each other about the show, the last episode, "Oh, I missed that one", "Gotta see the next one" etc. It absolutely does not matter if you miss a show. Were all myths busted, you would lose interest pretty soon. Were all of them confirmed, you would lose interest in the show as well.

[Big Les]

I agree pretty much voidx. Quality of metal counts for a lot, especially when comparing modern replica European weapons and the originals. It was just harder to obtain homogenous steel with straight edges and an even heat treatment. If you had the money though, no doubt they were available.

European swords do not use a slicing action to cut, they just a snap through chopping action. Its all about velocity and the edge geometry. A chop exerts much more force than a slice.

Well, European sabres use both (even if they were inspired by scimitars, shamshirs and tulwars). The British 1796 Light Cavalry sabre is a perfect design for a pure cutting sword.

Seeing as Eurpean swords had trouble cutting through 14-18 guage steel plate armour, (hence the reason for axes, war hammers, poleaxes and estocs) I am not at all surprised that they couldn't cut through a several inch thick solid piece of metal.

Me either. In fact, for all intents and purposes, swords simply could not cut through plate armour. They became weapons either for killing the unarmoured (plenty of those on any battlefield) or long, stiff, pointy weapons for poking through chinks in armour. They were pretty ineffectual against mail armour too, especially given the quilted fabric worn underneath. A mail shirt would have been very expensive and a prized possession - like body armour today, but even more exclusive.

Veering back on topic, what the MBs did was more than adequate to illustrate that there was no way in hell a sword was going to cut through those media. Simple physics precludes it, but MB is about graphic and entertaining demonstrations.

[Big Les]

I don't think it was a gaffe, it might well have been the weight of the sword they had. I just think it might say something about the accuracy of their swords.

The point was they where testing a sword three times heavier than a katana against one. That is not a real situation.

By "gaffe", I mean the choice of a ludicrously overweight sword, not an erroneous description. Knowing some of the crud that's out there I have no problem believing that the sword they chose really was that heavy.

But didn't they also test katana against katana? And get breakages, but no cuts (unsurprisingly)?

By and large their sword choice was pretty good - mid-range mono-steel katanoids. Not terribly historically accurate (not good enough for an experimental archaeology study), but in the right geometry and strength ballparks for TV use.

[Michael Redman]

It is claimed, above, that the entire season is scripted beforehand, including the outcome of every experiment. I didn't say it was you that made the claim.
My understanding was that a certain ratio would be planned. And "scripted", to me, is a term used in context of the actual shooting, editing of a show.

It doesn't matter what it means to you. The claim I'm referring to is that nothing happens on the show that wasn't predetermined. Nothing.

Actually, it does matter if a viewer sees all the episodes or not, and the number of reruns of each. The "exact ratio" theory is only plausible if the audience, on the whole, has exactly the same viewing experience.

If the audience does not share the same viewing experience, then the audience does not experience the same ratio of failure to success, and the effect of the ratio is lost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the producers are not so stupid as to believe that it is worth painfully crafting a perfect ratio that they know only a small minority of viewers will actually experience (even if it were plausible that fine tuning of the ratio would have a noticeable effect on ratings).
If you really believe that the overall ratio of busted/confirmed gets lost only because this or that member of the audience does not see each and every episode, you are wrong in my opinion.Opinion doesn't enter into it. If people watch different episodes, they're going to experience a different ratio.

Let's say I missed the last episode of The Simpsons. So what? Let's say I missed several episodes, or watched them on DVD in a different order. So what? This will not make me hate Homer, this will not stop me from liking the program.

Don't forget all the teasers, the press, people talking amongst each other about the show, the last episode, "Oh, I missed that one", "Gotta see the next one" etc. It absolutely does not matter if you miss a show.I obviously don't think it matters, since I'm arguing that the carefully crafted ratio theory is bunk. And your argument supports that position.
Were all myths busted, you would lose interest pretty soon. Were all of them confirmed, you would lose interest in the show as well.I've never said anything contrary. However, this is irrelevant to the claim I'm discussing.

[wahrheit]

It doesn't matter what it means to you.
For me it does matter, because scripting television programs is what I made my money with for quite a few years. Maybe I was asleep all the time and had no idea what I was doing and why these people would pay me for it, who knows.


The claim I'm referring to is that nothing happens on the show that wasn't predetermined. Nothing.
I've said it before, I am not involved in the production of MythBusters. To really know what's going on there would require a whistle-blower or insider. I was merely describing how TV shows are produced. Regarding the claim that nothing on MythBusters happens which has not been preterdemined, I never made such a claim, as you have noted before.

However, I might add that even on the live aired programs I worked on, not a taped show like MythBusters, that in a period of ten years I observed exactly one (1) event on camera that was not scripted, not predetermined, something happening which I didn't know before. Of course this is nothing but anecdotal evidence, I agree.


Opinion doesn't enter into it. If people watch different episodes, they're going to experience a different ratio.
Then let's agree to disagree.

I obviously don't think it matters, since I'm arguing that the carefully crafted ratio theory is bunk.

I do not know how to convince you here, but if you think that carefully crafted ratio theories are bunk, if you think nobody at the network and the production company cares how each episode ends, then many years of my life were nothing but a bad dream. :)

[Michael Redman]

For me it does matter, because scripting television programs is what I made my money with for quite a few years. Maybe I was asleep all the time and had no idea what I was doing and why these people would pay me for it, who knows.

I've said it before, I am not involved in the production of MythBusters. To really know what's going on there would require a whistle-blower or insider. I was merely describing how TV shows are produced. Regarding the claim that nothing on MythBusters happens which has not been preterdemined, I never made such a claim, as you have noted before.Yes, that is true, which is why it is puzzling that you are arguing with my response that that claim. I'm obviously not arguing that the show is unscripted. I'm arguing that the precise outcome of every experiment isn't predetermined, and that the precise ratio (not the general mix) of fail to succeed is not particularly important, and not something the studio is worrying about. Avoiding all successes or all failures is not remotely the same thing as scripting the precise outcome of every single experiment.

Look, different episodes have different numbers of results, and different numbers of each outcome. Therefore, the only way a viewer will see the outcomes in the same ratio presented by the overall season is if that viewer sees the entire season. Skip any episodes, or see any reruns, and the ratio you experience changes. This isn't an opinion, it's a simple matter of math.

You explained yourself that the industry knows that the success of a show doesn't depend on whether a viewer sees every episode. It makes absolutely no sense, then, to carefully craft a precise ratio of outcomes, the intent of which is to have a psychological impact on viewers, if you don't believe that your viewers will actually experience that precise ratio. It would be an obvious waste of time, and I don't think the studios are that stupid.

The bottom line is this: They don't need to script every experiment outcome, because it doesn't matter if a few experiments come out differently than expected. So there really isn't any reason to think they do so.

Besides, consider the absurdly complex and expensive proposition of actually making some of these experiments come out as intended.

Also, does anyone really think writers would (could) come up with all these results? And does anyone really think the cast is that good a company of actors to present such seemingly genuine reactions?

Possible. But unless someone can provide some actually evidence, I'll stick with the far more simple explanation.

[voidx]

I agree pretty much voidx. Quality of metal counts for a lot, especially when comparing modern replica European weapons and the originals. It was just harder to obtain homogenous steel with straight edges and an even heat treatment. If you had the money though, no doubt they were available.

I know a lot of people will within historical european martial arts sort of pooh pooh any blades that are machined, even though the vast majority of affordable replicas are. I certainly have no doubts that modern quality of metal is superior.

However, having handled and put through hard paces, a wide range of replica swords and seen study and footage of other groups that have done the same. Replica's still have a ways to go. Although I'll admit they've improved a lot over the last 2 or 3 years. The issues before wasn't actually the blade or the metal. They were either to heavy or too light, had slightly incorrect blade geometry. However, the part they've struggled with most is the hilt/cross guard assembly, as well as weak tangs. Most, after a good hard trial start to loosen or crack or plain just fall apart.


Well, European sabres use both (even if they were inspired by scimitars, shamshirs and tulwars). The British 1796 Light Cavalry sabre is a perfect design for a pure cutting sword.

Certainly. Although in many respects the sabre's curved blade gained its real utility when used on horseback rather than on foot. You didn't want it getting stuck in your opponent when whizzing by on a horse, pluse the added momentum of the horse gave it a lot more cleaving/slicing power than one would have standing on foot.

I refer more to the middle ages and early renaissance when bladed weapon tactics were at their height. Longsword, sword and shield or buckler. While draw cuts were utilized with those weapons, their utility was limited. Draw cuts down work at all on sturdy clothing, only with a biting chopping cut to begin with or on naked skin such as the face were they useful.


Me either. In fact, for all intents and purposes, swords simply could not cut through plate armour. They became weapons either for killing the unarmoured (plenty of those on any battlefield) or long, stiff, pointy weapons for poking through chinks in armour. They were pretty ineffectual against mail armour too, especially given the quilted fabric worn underneath. A mail shirt would have been very expensive and a prized possession - like body armour today, but even more exclusive.

Aside from just the strength of that steel alone, there was also the shapes of the armor, ridged and coned on purpose to deflect blows, making it very hard to lay a solid edge blow period, it also made thrusts along those major targets pretty much impossible. However, there's still something to be said for the sheer blunt force trauma of those blows to the head, even if they did not cut through the armour. The same goes for gambesons and mail. They prevent cuts, but on tests with sides of beef and pork hinds, it was shown that there would still have been massive muscle trauma to the underlying arm and musculature. It might save your arm, but I doubt you'd be moving it much for a long while after. The only thing I'd risk getting hit with at full speed and feel mostly protected is plate.


Veering back on topic, what the MBs did was more than adequate to illustrate that there was no way in hell a sword was going to cut through those media. Simple physics precludes it, but MB is about graphic and entertaining demonstrations.
I agree. I don't think any minor adjustments to the actual movement of the blade would have made any difference. I was more than convinced that they adequately showed it was not probable, despite in minor ignorance of actual sword techniques. The only thing I think would have been different is that in human hands, although they would not have been able to cut any further into the barrel, in fact I'd imagine less so. I think it fairly obvious that the blades wouldn't have broken. No human could have a strong enough grip to hold the blade solid enough to break the blade in that scenario. Not after a single blow anyway.

[Skeptic Guy]

It's almost criminal that this thread has gone this far without a picture of Kari.

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg

That's great. Is it real or photoshopped?

Not necessarily (and I will admit that I have never watched the show here). If you shoot too many for a "themed" programme, how hard would it be to include it in an unthemed programme later in the series?

I don't see a problem with it from a technical or a planning perspective but I would question whether it would make sense from a programming perspective. If they already had a "Katana themed" show, it may be too much to expect another segment on Katanas in another show during the same season.

My two cents.

[Big Les]

Replica's still have a ways to go. Although I'll admit they've improved a lot over the last 2 or 3 years. The issues before wasn't actually the blade or the metal. They were either to heavy or too light, had slightly incorrect blade geometry. However, the part they've struggled with most is the hilt/cross guard assembly, as well as weak tangs. Most, after a good hard trial start to loosen or crack or plain just fall apart.

They've improved muchly, but in keeping them below a few hundred pounds, they do tend have some significant flaw as you say. There are decent higher end pieces - Albion Armourers in the US are the best I've seen in person, although they're mostly CNCd/stock-removed - taking advantage of modern processes. Great for performance and general aesthetics, but not historically accurate enough for meaningful tests I would say. I have one of their Gladii, plus a low-end custom medieval single-handed sword from Paul Binns. Out-and-out performance swords like Angus Trims' are supposed to be excellent too, as well as some Czech makers.

Certainly. Although in many respects the sabre's curved blade gained its real utility when used on horseback rather than on foot. You didn't want it getting stuck in your opponent when whizzing by on a horse, pluse the added momentum of the horse gave it a lot more cleaving/slicing power than one would have standing on foot.

The Royal Armouries have some footage of the boost afforded by the horse in action against innocent melons on posts (!). Although as an infantry weapon it was still pretty nifty on foot - I have an original at home and access to many more at work, and they have strange balance but a very "handy" feel - you could fight with the wrist, or go for a more Eastern style close to the body, shoulder-driven. Naval officers appreciated the style for close-in fighting on decks etc, a sort of high-end cutlass, whilst infantry officers bought them mostly for the fashion prestige (the flashy blue and gilt ones at any rate).

I refer more to the middle ages and early renaissance when bladed weapon tactics were at their height. Longsword, sword and shield or buckler. While draw cuts were utilized with those weapons, their utility was limited. Draw cuts down work at all on sturdy clothing, only with a biting chopping cut to begin with or on naked skin such as the face were they useful.

True, although variations like the falchion and early backsword are overlooked - fewer have survived. Plenty in the artwork of the day though. I recently saw a C14th excavated piece with single edge and a slight reverse curve like a kukri, - very odd.

However, there's still something to be said for the sheer blunt force trauma of those blows to the head, even if they did not cut through the armour. The same goes for gambesons and mail. They prevent cuts, but on tests with sides of beef and pork hinds, it was shown that there would still have been massive muscle trauma to the underlying arm and musculature. It might save your arm, but I doubt you'd be moving it much for a long while after. The only thing I'd risk getting hit with at full speed and feel mostly protected is plate.

I think mail is under-rated, and I'm not sure dead meat is representative of the true severity of the wound. Ideally you'd want historical-spec mail and padding, and that's never been done AFAIK. The gambeson/mail combo seems to be superb against arrows as well - only long bodkins can penetrate, and they don't go very far in - hence the source describing crusaders marching along looking like hedgehogs (or similar). There's a school of thought that plate only really takes off because it becomes as cheap to make and then cheaper than, mail.

[DRBUZZ0]

Does anyone know if the rather unrelated myths are done independently and then cut together into the episodes? or do they do each episode independently start to finish?

I can see how they could balance the myth buster/confirmed if they some of them alone and then just stuck them into the episodes. Some episodes are somewhat dominated by a certain myth but they often have other secondary myths that aren't even related.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's almost criminal that this thread has gone this far without a picture of Kari.

http://www.tvsquad.com/media/2006/05/mythbuster-kari.jpg

I shall follow suit:

Inappropriate content removed

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://images.main.uab.edu/mediarelations/siteadmin/releaseimages/limited/big/lecture_mythbusters_kari_1.jpg

[DRBUZZ0]

I'm not sure if that photo is more attractive or scary. She looks like she's trying to entice come guy to coming over with that inocent cute smile and then slice right through them with that blade thing.

[Shrike]

I'm not sure if that photo is more attractive or scary. She looks like she's trying to entice come guy to coming over with that inocent cute smile and then slice right through them with that blade thing.

Oh wow.
I didn't even see that. I'd be dead meat by now.

[Michael Redman]

Does anyone know if the rather unrelated myths are done independently and then cut together into the episodes? or do they do each episode independently start to finish?

I can see how they could balance the myth buster/confirmed if they some of them alone and then just stuck them into the episodes. Some episodes are somewhat dominated by a certain myth but they often have other secondary myths that aren't even related.They must overlap. Some of the experiments take months. And they probably do a fair number that don't yield interesting results, and never air. So I'm sure they have some leeway to edit for effect.

Of course, they wouldn't need to do this if they simply faked a set of predetermined results . . .

[Unalienable]

I think the (Ming Dynasty Astronaut) myth spread because its perpetrators' understanding of the physics involved was much too basic.
I agree, but only to an extent. Like yourself, I don't believe for a second that this myth is true--it's just a legend probably invented long after the Ming Dynasty that got passed around because it sounds slightly plausible. And of course, a requirement for any good folklore, is that it's interesting. And, like you say, it's only plausible to those who don't have a good understanding of physics and what gunpowder is capable of.

The Mythbusters were able to demonstrate that it takes a lot more effort to fling an emperor into space, than most laymen would assume. The myth is Busted, because reality is not as simple as the simple innocence the myth takes on.
Well if you define the myth that the guy had to actually get into space then it becomes a lot easier to bust. But it's not necessary for the guy to go into space for the myth to have started from a real event. Perhaps it was a dark night when he launched, and he came crashing down to his doom someplace nearby, and amazed onlookers simply thought he made it into space.

From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted."

My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water.

[zooterkin]

You are saying that she did not mean what she said.

I'll grant that she did say what you quote.

The way I read what she said, in the context of this thread (and I admit I may be guilty of the naivety she alludes to) was that this was a combination of general and specific comments about TV. The comments about MythBusters specifically I took to be about the ratio of busted to upheld myths; I'd also, on re-reading, be prepared to believe that anything shown on the programme might be faked to some degree for effect. Because of the other posts in this thread, however, about the feedback on the series, and how open the presenters are in general, I didn't think that they would knowingly produce the wrong outcome (in the way the UK series Brainiac has done), so didn't take Teek's comments to say that.

[ponderingturtle]

They've improved muchly, but in keeping them below a few hundred pounds, they do tend have some significant flaw as you say. There are decent higher end pieces - Albion Armourers in the US are the best I've seen in person, although they're mostly CNCd/stock-removed - taking advantage of modern processes. Great for performance and general aesthetics, but not historically accurate enough for meaningful tests I would say. I have one of their Gladii, plus a low-end custom medieval single-handed sword from Paul Binns. Out-and-out performance swords like Angus Trims' are supposed to be excellent too, as well as some Czech makers. .

I would expect that. Modern machinery can produce levels of precision greater than was possible then.

It is getting the best dimensions on it.

[ponderingturtle]

I'll grant that she did say what you quote.

The way I read what she said, in the context of this thread (and I admit I may be guilty of the naivety she alludes to) was that this was a combination of general and specific comments about TV. The comments about MythBusters specifically I took to be about the ratio of busted to upheld myths; I'd also, on re-reading, be prepared to believe that anything shown on the programme might be faked to some degree for effect. Because of the other posts in this thread, however, about the feedback on the series, and how open the presenters are in general, I didn't think that they would knowingly produce the wrong outcome (in the way the UK series Brainiac has done), so didn't take Teek's comments to say that.


Why? Just because most people do not agree with it, why would you interpret that it was not what she meant?

[Ove]

I agree, but only to an extent. Like yourself, I don't believe for a second that this myth is true--it's just a legend probably invented long after the Ming Dynasty that got passed around because it sounds slightly plausible. And of course, a requirement for any good folklore, is that it's interesting. And, like you say, it's only plausible to those who don't have a good understanding of physics and what gunpowder is capable of.


Well if you define the myth that the guy had to actually get into space then it becomes a lot easier to bust. But it's not necessary for the guy to go into space for the myth to have started from a real event. Perhaps it was a dark night when he launched, and he came crashing down to his doom someplace nearby, and amazed onlookers simply thought he made it into space.

From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted."

My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water.

If you have read or know anything about rocket guidance then the whole idea seems utterly silly. Sure the Shuttle lifts of on two gun powder rockets (sorta :) ) but it has other engines that do the guidance. A chair with umpteen gun powder rockets strapped on would have flown straight for about 2 seconds or so and then tumbled hopelessly out of control. See the old videos from the 50's/60's of rocket launches that went wrong and you'll know what i am talking about.

Perhaps the mythbusters sometimes are a bit hasty but this time they were 100% correct.

[anticonspiracy911]

A sitcom is presented as fiction. A science show is often fiction as well but the audience is not meant to know that.



Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? Or is this just your cynical self talking out of your ass?

[anticonspiracy911]

No, not at all, please read my posts above. I am talking about how a TV show is planned. You simply would not randomly pick 12 myths, shoot them, spend a lot of time and money, and then be surprised when the network guy says: "Uh, kinda boring this time, isn't it. All 12 myths turned out to be true. I don't think we want to air that."

But that's how a science show should be done. I don't think anyone would get depressed by lopsided outcomes. Them testing the myths is where the entertainment value is at.

[ArmillarySphere]

I daresay that they probably pick the myths, true, but for entertainment and interest. And the most interesting myths are the ones that noone really knows if they're true or not, including the producers. And any producer worth his salt would probably stay away from anything that seems too boring or pedantic to be entertaining, but so what? We're talking about the experiments here, not the outcomes.

Me, I just like watching their creative approach to testing the myths (and the stuff blowing up, of course). The truth value of the myths is much less vital.

[T'ai Chi]

Thank you everyone for all this wonderful information.

[tkingdoll]

But that's how a science show should be done. I don't think anyone would get depressed by lopsided outcomes. Them testing the myths is where the entertainment value is at.

Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.

[Wowbagger]

From what I recall, the MythBuster's crew simply got the chair to flip over, because they failed to sychronize the ignitions of the rockets. They failed to even overcome the most basic hurdle in getting this work. Perhaps if they spent a few more weeks on the project they would have overcome the sychronization problem only to discover a deeper core problem---namely, that of gunpowder-based fireworks being incapable of lifting even the lightest chinaman in that fashion.

But they didn't get that far. They just saw their chair flipped over, concluded that they failed, so called it "busted." From what I remember, they did try the gun powder at first, and ruled it was inadequate. Only then, did they try the modern rockets, where the hurdle became synchronization.

My point, and I still stand behind it, is that MythBusters all too often uses the argument: "If we can't do it then nobody else could have done it." That just doesn't hold water. Ah, I consider this a valid argument. Just 'cause they can't do it does not automatically mean it is utterly impossible.

But, I also think there is more to it than that: There are very well understood scientific laws and theories as to how a myth could not possibly work, which they try to communicate (albeit rather too breifly, sometimes); and they place great effort into trying. Unless they made a mistake, it is unlikely that anyone else would be able to make the myth work, unless they put even more super-human effort into it.

At any rate, if the question is about bias tainting the results of the show, I would say the MB's do about as brilliant a job as anyone at eliminating bias. (which is to say they are not absolutely perfect, but then again, no one else would be.)

[JoeEllison]

I daresay that they probably pick the myths, true, but for entertainment and interest. And the most interesting myths are the ones that noone really knows if they're true or not, including the producers. And any producer worth his salt would probably stay away from anything that seems too boring or pedantic to be entertaining, but so what? We're talking about the experiments here, not the outcomes.

Me, I just like watching their creative approach to testing the myths (and the stuff blowing up, of course). The truth value of the myths is much less vital.

Sometimes, it is clear that they absolutely know something is confirmed, and test the myth anyways because it is entertaining. The water heater rocket, for example, has happened in reality and they revealed that fact at the end of the show. That doesn't make launching a water heater 300 feet in the air any less entertaining.

[Michael Redman]

Sometimes, it is clear that they absolutely know something is confirmed, and test the myth anyways because it is entertaining. The water heater rocket, for example, has happened in reality and they revealed that fact at the end of the show. That doesn't make launching a water heater 300 feet in the air any less entertaining.That was amazing. Perhaps the best visual they've ever done.

[Unalienable]

But, I also think there is more to it than that: There are very well understood scientific laws and theories as to how a myth could not possibly work, which they try to communicate (albeit rather too breifly, sometimes); and they place great effort into trying. Unless they made a mistake, it is unlikely that anyone else would be able to make the myth work, unless they put even more super-human effort into it.
I agree with that somewhat--I wouldn't even be too hard on them for being terse with their descriptions; they are trying to pack as much punch into 30 minutes as possible. In some rare cases a myth may require a leap of ingenuity or some very special conditions that they fail to duplicate.

I suppose my real gripe is that their category of "busted" included two entirely different situations. In some cases they simply provide compelling evidence that the myth is false, without actually falsifying it. In other cases, the myth is totally, flat out, no two ways about it, busted.

[JoeEllison]

That was amazing. Perhaps the best visual they've ever done.Better than Kari in a bikini and painted silver?

[CFLarsen]

Thank you everyone for all this wonderful information.

Why is this "wonderful" information?

[Dunstan]

Why is this "wonderful" information?

Because his ignore list is so big, it's a wonder he saw any of it.

[anticonspiracy911]

Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.

All of the above is self-evident. Reality TV is scripted. However, not all live tv is pre-recorded. The network morning shows and awards shows aren't pre-recorded. There on a seven second delay, but that's about it.

[wahrheit]

There on a seven second delay, but that's about it.

Not outside the US. :) Our delay was something like a quarter of a second, or whatever it takes the signal to travel to the geostationary satellite and back to earth at the speed of light.

[CFLarsen]

Because his ignore list is so big, it's a wonder he saw any of it.

Ah. Of course.

Not a wonder, though. A miracle.

Not outside the US. :) Our delay was something like a quarter of a second, or whatever it takes the signal to travel to the geostationary satellite and back to earth at the speed of light.

A quarter of a second?

You wanna do the math, before I do it? ;)

[robinson]

22,300 miles X 2 divide into 186,282.397 = about a quarter of a second

[tkingdoll]

All of the above is self-evident. Reality TV is scripted. However, not all live tv is pre-recorded. The network morning shows and awards shows aren't pre-recorded. There on a seven second delay, but that's about it.

Yes, that would be evident in the qualifier 'often', implying that the pre-recording is not absolute.

[DRBUZZ0]

Reality TV shows such as Big Brother use scripts. Talent shows such as the X-Factor are fixed. Science shows such as Tomorrow's World fake the outcome of experiments (or they used to when the show existed). 'Live' TV is often pre-recorded. Magic shows which proclaim they don't use stooges, use stooges. How any TV show should be done and how it is actually done are very different things, sadly. It's a cynical business.


That's absolutely true. And many "Reality" shows are not entirely synthetic but are based on stuff fed by the producers as well as heavy editing to make things seem different than they are. Shows like "American Chopper" are probably not 100% faked, and based mostly on reality but they edit it to make it interesting and develop characters. IE: dad might have a short temper, but if they showed it in real proportions it wouldn't be that interesting, so they splice together all the anger over the course of a month and leave out the fact that it was really only 2% of the time.


I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US game shows, shows based on audience polls or any other showing that there is any clear winner or which report to be based on such things and with a winner CANNOT be fixed, under extreme penalty of law. This goes back to the 1950's when there were a bunch of fixed quiz shows. They were investigated by the FCC and later a congressional committee. The culimination included several of the producers being prosecuted for fraud and obstruction of justice. Congress passed an amendment to the television communications act which made it illegal to fix a TV gameshow.

There have been investigations by the FCC since then, but I don't believe any shows have been found to be 100% fixed, although some fines have been leveled for deceptive shows or other violations. Similarly, it is illegal in the US to broadcast a television show as "Live" when it has been prerecorded. However, real-time "tape-loop" delays are allowed, but limited in the duration they can be.

I don't know anything about "Tomorrow's world"


I think one should note that these are done for a reason: to get better ratings or to please a sponsor. What would be the gain from outright faking Mythbusters? The show does some interesting experiments, some of which don't work. They show you most of the stuff (or claim to) and it's pretty interesting. If they started really faking it I think that would be something people would start to notice when they can't be repeated or verified. That seems like it would be something fans might be turned off by.

Some of us can attest that Adam and the other members of the show are indeed interesting characters. So why exactly would they *need* to resort to trickery? I'm sure it is edited to make it more compelling. But that's a lot different than faking results.

[CFLarsen]

22,300 miles X 2 divide into 186,282.397 = about a quarter of a second

Pssst....

A geostationary satellite remains in the same position above a point on the Earth's surface. Hence, it doesn't matter if such a satellite is above the US or not.

[robinson]

Teek is correct about how TV production works.

[tkingdoll]

That's absolutely true. And many "Reality" shows are not entirely synthetic but are based on stuff fed by the producers as well as heavy editing to make things seem different than they are. Shows like "American Chopper" are probably not 100% faked, and based mostly on reality but they edit it to make it interesting and develop characters. IE: dad might have a short temper, but if they showed it in real proportions it wouldn't be that interesting, so they splice together all the anger over the course of a month and leave out the fact that it was really only 2% of the time.


I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the US game shows, shows based on audience polls or any other showing that there is any clear winner or which report to be based on such things and with a winner CANNOT be fixed, under extreme penalty of law. This goes back to the 1950's when there were a bunch of fixed quiz shows. They were investigated by the FCC and later a congressional committee. The culimination included several of the producers being prosecuted for fraud and obstruction of justice. Congress passed an amendment to the television communications act which made it illegal to fix a TV gameshow.

There have been investigations by the FCC since then, but I don't believe any shows have been found to be 100% fixed, although some fines have been leveled for deceptive shows or other violations. Similarly, it is illegal in the US to broadcast a television show as "Live" when it has been prerecorded. However, real-time "tape-loop" delays are allowed, but limited in the duration they can be.

I don't know anything about "Tomorrow's world"


I think one should note that these are done for a reason: to get better ratings or to please a sponsor. What would be the gain from outright faking Mythbusters? The show does some interesting experiments, some of which don't work. They show you most of the stuff (or claim to) and it's pretty interesting. If they started really faking it I think that would be something people would start to notice when they can't be repeated or verified. That seems like it would be something fans might be turned off by.

Some of us can attest that Adam and the other members of the show are indeed interesting characters. So why exactly would they *need* to resort to trickery? I'm sure it is edited to make it more compelling. But that's a lot different than faking results.

I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.

The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made. Insurance, health and safety, time and cost constraints, unpredictable members of the public, etc mean that the most entertaining things are also the ones impossible to do for real. It's somewhat of a house of cards, if people demand no fakery, they are going to find that certain shows (particularly science and property shows) simply won't get made any more. It's also problematic because some shows (BBC) are funded by TV license funds, paid for directly by the public. However, the BBC is now funding three channels with the same budget it previously had for one. It's not difficult to see how cost becomes far more important than integrity, particularly because of the way shows are made now. Small production companies make the show, not the channel itself. And small production companies often only care about profit, by any means necessary.

[Dunstan]

The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made.

Ok, but the TARDIS really does travel in time and space, right? Don't break my heart.

[wahrheit]

A quarter of a second?

You wanna do the math, before I do it? ;)

Yes, please do the math for me.


Oops, robinson already did it.


Seriously, I was only talking off the top of my head when mentioning that quarter of a second. To be fair, you might want to add a little more to that, since some funny machines like "time base correctors" et al will add a little more to that delay, but not up to seven seconds. I assume (i.e. I am not sure) that the seven second delay mentioned before might be due to some weird regulations in the US, so that they can BLEEP mean words. Word which will be replaced by **** on this forum, as well.

[tkingdoll]

Ok, but the TARDIS really does travel in time and space, right? Don't break my heart.

lol :D

Fiction isn't included in my statements.

Er...I mean, space documentaries.

*phew*

[DRBUZZ0]

I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.


There's a difference between fakery and shortcuts. I'm sure that there are occasional shortcuts or parts which may be staged for a refilming because the original event didn't give them a good shot, or parts which are edited out or whatever. That is all a given. There are plenty of documentaries or news shows where a big part can end up on the cutting room floor.

None of that is really "fakery"


The UK is going through a TV crisis at present, much to the satisfaction of whistle-blowers like myself. A lot of fixing and faking has been brought to the attention of the press, but it's interesting because the public get all outraged without knowing the complete picture. It's as simple as this: without the shortcuts, most of their favourite shows simply wouldn't get made. Insurance, health and safety, time and cost constraints, unpredictable members of the public, etc mean that the most entertaining things are also the ones impossible to do for real. It's somewhat of a house of cards, if people demand no fakery, they are going to find that certain shows (particularly science and property shows) simply won't get made any more. It's also problematic because some shows (BBC) are funded by TV license funds, paid for directly by the public. However, the BBC is now funding three channels with the same budget it previously had for one. It's not difficult to see how cost becomes far more important than integrity, particularly because of the way shows are made now. Small production companies make the show, not the channel itself. And small production companies often only care about profit, by any means necessary.

Right, well there is obviously some difference between the shows as far as the type. Sitcoms and such are obviously fiction so anything goes. On "reality" tv like Big Brother or the Osbournes that's really just a semi-realish sitcom. There's no attempt at factual evidence.

But gameshows or where the audience is asked to call in and the winner is chosen by this method are, at least in the US, audited by the FCC from time to time and it's considered fraud to fix those outright.

AS far as science shows: I guess it depends on what the context is. If they want to demonstrate something like "This is what happends when a tank of hydrogen explodes" that's more a visual aid. But if they want to go and say "We hired some explosives experts for this show and had them conduct an experiment on this tank of hydrogen to demonstrate..." Then they're implying that there is some reality to the experiment and that goes much further.

[Foster Zygote]

Oh wow.
I didn't even see that. I'd be dead meat by now.

That innocent, cute smile is pretty effective, innit?

[robinson]

Time base correctors (TBCs) sync up various sources, they don't delay the signal, at least not in any way you could tell.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think anyone is claiming Mythbusters is faked, but if they don't resort to some fakery/shortcuts (to save money and time) then they're probably the only TV show in the world which doesn't.


Well specifically the claim originated in that it is what I said what you said meant.

Now what would fakery mean on mythbusters? I don't think anyone questions that many of the scenes are staged when they are talking to the camera, and likely some of the working scenes. It is the testing scenes that faking becomes meaningful.

[tkingdoll]

Well specifically the claim originated in that it is what I said what you said meant.



Well, generally I'm the one who decides what I mean.



Now what would fakery mean on mythbusters? I don't think anyone questions that many of the scenes are staged when they are talking to the camera, and likely some of the working scenes. It is the testing scenes that faking becomes meaningful.

Generally, production companies make little or no distinction between 'meaningful' fakery and any other sort. In the case of Mythbusters, I guess we'll simply never know.

[Elizabeth I]

Ok, but the TARDIS really does travel in time and space, right? Don't break my heart.

Absolutely, but I want Christopher Eccleston back as the Doctor.

[Marcus]

Anyone happen to catch the Mythbusters 2 hour "supersize" special? All myths were confirmed, except 1 Plausible and 1 undetermined (the rockets blew up). So much for the ratio theory.

[R.Mackey]

If you have read or know anything about rocket guidance then the whole idea seems utterly silly. Sure the Shuttle lifts of on two gun powder rockets (sorta :) ) but it has other engines that do the guidance. A chair with umpteen gun powder rockets strapped on would have flown straight for about 2 seconds or so and then tumbled hopelessly out of control. See the old videos from the 50's/60's of rocket launches that went wrong and you'll know what i am talking about.

The Shuttle SRB's also are capable of steering the vehicle. The nozzles of each are gimbaled, using a system called the TVC (Thrust Vector Control). The Shuttle Main Engines also have the capability to throttle up and down a considerable amount, or shut down completely on command, whereas the SRB's once lit are going until expended. But all five main engines can be steered.

What was missing from the black powder lawnchair rocket was (a) fins and (b) a guidance rail to keep it pointed straight until aerodynamic stability could take over. Could be done. Almost certainly wasn't in the past.

[Dan O.]

While you're pondering this subject, you could hop over to the iTunes store for the FREE download of MythBusters Revealed (Season 3 episode 27).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Anyone happen to catch the Mythbusters 2 hour "supersize" special? All myths were confirmed, except 1 Plausible and 1 undetermined (the rockets blew up). So much for the ratio theory.

Can you find the post where anyone claimed that a specific percentage of myths on every show would have a specific outcome?

If not, then so much for "so much for the ratio theory".

[wahrheit]

Time base correctors (TBCs) sync up various sources, they don't delay the signal, at least not in any way you could tell.

If a time base corrector does NOT delay the signal, it is broken. Delaying the signal is the purpose of a TBC, not an insignificant side-effect. And of course you can tell the difference. Visit an edit suite or broadcast van and play around with the knobs.

Also, please note that I wrote 'machines like "time base correctors" et al'. The sum of all the machines involved can sum up to a very noticeable delay.

[Shrike]

That innocent, cute smile is pretty effective, innit?

Yep...

[Ove]

The Shuttle SRB's also are capable of steering the vehicle. The nozzles of each are gimbaled, using a system called the TVC (Thrust Vector Control). The Shuttle Main Engines also have the capability to throttle up and down a considerable amount, or shut down completely on command, whereas the SRB's once lit are going until expended. But all five main engines can be steered.

What was missing from the black powder lawnchair rocket was (a) fins and (b) a guidance rail to keep it pointed straight until aerodynamic stability could take over. Could be done. Almost certainly wasn't in the past.

Nitpick forgiven :) -i really wasn't aware that the boosters had guidance, now i know. But yes my point was that the chair would have lacked guidance and it would never have achieved aerodynamic stability simply because a chair ISN'T streamlined :D . Besides that, the gunpowder rochets would have to deliver exactly the same thrust to achieve stability and i seriously doubt that could be made using old chinese methods.

[Marcus]

It's television.

Anything you see at any time may be faked in order to get the shot required for the scripted outcome. That's how television works. There are no surprises in television any more. There's too much money involved to gamble it on unknown quantities. No-one wants to hear this about their favourite shows. UK viewers are slowly starting to find out just how true it is, though. If there's a certain ratio of busted to confirmed, it's planned that way, carefully, in advance.
Well. he did say "if" but I don't think he was the only one implying that ratios were desired.

[Marcus]

I was about to write something very similar, but Teek beat me to it. The ratio between busted and confirmed myths is not a scientific or mathematical issue, it's the decision of the producers. It would be boring to have them bust every myth, it would be boring the other way round.


Okay, so I'll look up multiquote before I do this again These are in response to Jaggy Bunny.

[tkingdoll]

I'm not a 'he'.

[zooterkin]

I'm not a 'he'.

Surely you know there's only one response to that?
















Evidence?



:D

[jnelso99]

Any idea where to find the Mythbusters ratings online anywhere? I'm curious to see if the ratings for episodes with more "confirmed" or "busted" myths are consistently higher or lower.

[Marcus]

I'm not a 'he'.

I should have known from the "doll" at the end. :o