I like this show. Who doesn’t want to make a cannon to fire frozen chickens at an airplane windshield? (I have wanted to since I first heard that story.)
Yes, the science can be shaky, and the contortions they got through to make things work can be extreme, but this show is more about finding a way to make an approximation, then about definitively proving anything. Too many people would look at one of these myths, and say that they have no idea what to do to prove/disprove it. To me, this show is all about teaching people to use their imaginations and their brains.
How about you don’t words into my mouth their buddy. Where did I state that I completely disregard anything and/or everything he asserts? Well, I didn’t. I merely stated that I hold something that I’ve seen with my own two eyes with much more value than some group of writers who expect one to take everything they state at face value (which opposes this website’s motto).
Just wanted to apologise for that last comment in my above post, it came out harsher than I intended, especially for this forum. I like the show too, but I am not going to be blinded to outside evidence from other sources just because I’m a fan of the show and those two couldn’t replicate the legend on the set.
Fair enough, I didn’t mean anything offensive by my posts either; but it’s difficult to compose an opinion that finds a middle ground between asshole and wussy.
I would be extremely hesitant to trust Brunvand. He’s much more concerned about how and why the stories spread than about their truth, and he often jumps to conclusions based on insufficient or nonexistant evidence. For instance, he dismisses the “Want a cookie” computer program story as clearly fictitious, since any computer scientist can tell you a dozen reasons why such a program is absolutely utterly impossible. Except that I’ve personally written one, as have many other programmers. And he considers it absolutely ludicrous that a college student might accidentally leave an important paper or folder on the roof of the car, on the way to class. Again, I’ve seen people leave things on the roof, including paperwork, when getting ready to drive some place. JAMA may be reputable, but that reputability has nothing to do with Brunvand citing them.
What gives me a kick was my dad complained earlier this week about how Mythbusters isn’t very scientific because they trust the experiment, instead of the “real” answer. After all, everyone knows that microwaves heat food from the inside out, so that’s what they should have said. (his proof for this, by the way, was that he heated an egg in the microwave, and the outside of the egg got hot.)
Hmm. Simalpost. In any event, it seems to me that in this case, Cecil isn’t asking you to take what he said “at face value”, he provided cites from legitimate sources that you seem to have chosen to ignore completely.
Anyways, all I’m saying is that their “8th grade science projects” are true to themselves and either prove or disprove the myth based on the methods their utilizing, at that point it’s up the viewer to determine whether that translates to them actually busting the myth or not.
Where does this “ignore” concept come into play? I don’t disregard anything he says, all I know is that various “sources’ aren’t always correct, and there’s no way for “Cecil” to know that. I respect MythBusters on the grounds that they do more than mere research, they try to prove or disprove a myth with methods that are clearly exhibited on television.
And, in an interesting coincidence, on the show’s webpage, they list The Straight Dope as a weblink under “our selection of myths to explore was inspired by a number of Web sites, including:” waves Hi Adam! Hi Jamie!
Did you not read anything I said? I directly referenced your first statement in an earlier comment, that apparently you overlooked. Second, now you’re putting words into my mouth. I never said I “disregard the straight dope”. I’d appreciate it if you read my comments first before you wasted my time.
As for Myth Busters being inspired by Straight Dope, so what? Currently I’m working on a website which was inspired by mediocre others (before you guys get the jump on putting words into my mouth, again, I am not referencing the Straight Dope in regards to the current comment), thus I have no idea your intentions when you decided to quote that.
Anyways, I feel discussing thus matter any further will not yield any positive results and will merely result in reiterations of past avowal’s. I am now done responding in this topic. I hope you guys feel the same way.
I thought this was the single best one they did. The conventional wisdom really was that the prisoners probably drowned; I saw that repeated in almost every account of the escape. And then these guys proved it wasn’t even that hard.
I read your posts. I continue to disagree with them.
Let me put it to you this way: Mythbusters did an experiment which they think proves that a person could not suffer injury from a vacuum toilet, and you agree with them. Cecil cites the Journal of the American Medical Association, which states that an elderly woman did in fact suffer an intestinal injury from a vacuum toilet. Furthermore, there are documented cases of people suffering similar injuries from pool drains. LinkLink While a pool drain is not the same as a vacuum toilet, they both involve a motorized pump. Therefore, if you continue to agree with Mythbusters, you are in fact disregarding a scientific journal, and similar documented cases. If I am “putting words in your mouth”, it is only because they are a logical consequence of your own statements.