This thread has been wonderfully informative. Thanks for all the responses.
Would you care to hear about the factual errors Law and Order makes on a weekly basis?
Wrong thread 
Plus I don’t think the OP was about factual errors, but bad science. You have to compress time frames and create composite characters to keep the story moving when you have only 60 minutes to tell a story. Bad science is stuff like the aforementioned ridiculous resolution abilities on grainy surveillance videos, and reproducing someone’s voice from a piece of pottery. Another time they picked up a victim’s blood sample from salivary spray on a die that the killer had blown on before he rolled it. I’m pretty much expecting the next thing will be reproducing the image of a killer from the victim’s retina.
I love this show but two things piss me off, well maybe three.
-
Say they are in a vic’s house. One or more of the CSI gang goes to explore the upstairs. They don’t bother to flip on any lights. They just fumble around with their flashlights. Come on! You’re looking for evidence! You should utilize any and all available light!
-
When they are using a blacklight to find biological evidence (usually semen) and they come across (no pun intended) a drop on the carpet, they claim as though it’s fact, that it is indeed semen. Blacklights will also illuminate certain household cleansers and whatnot. So one drop would need to be taken into the lab to determine if it was, in fact, some perps nuttage.
-
Katherine, as a FIELD INVESTIGATOR, is always running about in high heels, a sexy leather coat, and swank clothes. Granted, she looks hot but it’s not realistic attire for someone processing a crime scene in the Nevada desert.
-
When the gang is in the lab, none of them wear anything to keep their hair from contaminating the evidence. (ok that was four things)
Nobody expects CSI: Spanish Inquisition!
I’ve been told by somebody who may have been full of crap that you’re supposed to leave everything exactly as it is–if the lights are off, you leave them off. I say dust the switches for prints, then turn 'em on. 
I got a kick out of the scene where a tech is explaining why she never goes to restaurants: it’s unsanitary because people talk over the food, leaving their spit on the food. She never eats birthday cakes either because somoene has breathed on it (blowing out the candles).
She’s saying all this out loud while handling DNA samples! Not even wearing a mask! (Maybe it was an intentional joke - I hope it was.)
I know the science is horrendous.
I don’t care.
It’s a brilliant show and I love it. So there.
Nope, not busted at all. Couple things about suppressors:
- In most cases, all they do is reduce the amount of noise the gun produces. Some of the very best ones will make the gun very quiet, but they are properly designed suppressors that are carefully fitted to the gun and use ammuniton loaded for use with suppressors. The gun itself is modified for use with the suppressor. In addition to a threaded barrell, you can expect a catch to lock the action closed on a self-loading weapon.
- Soda bottles can be used to reduce the sound signature on small bore, low pressure rounds in the .22 rimfire class. It works best with non-self-loading rifles, but can be done with self-loading or single shot pistols. It also works for only a shot or two. It requires that the bottle be firmly affixd to the barrel and toroughly sealed to prevent leakage of the firing gases. IT IS ALSO ILLEGAL.
Yes, I am aware of the good points you raise in #1. I agree. As to #2, all I can say is that on the show, I believe they were using a 9mm semiauto, not something like a reduced load .22, and it was held on by hand and not thoroughly sealed. I said that it might reduce the sound, but I’m telling you that .45 still rang our ears, which was not how it went in the show.
(Admited, we are discussing two different calibers here, but I’ve shot both and the 9 mils are pretty lound in their right, though maybe not as loud as the .45s.)
Oh, and yeah, I know it is illegal to try to silence a pistol with getting the right paperwork and paying the transfer tax. But I did not claim that what we were doing back then was SMART! :wally <---- That’s us, not you.
The infinite image enhancement schtick is my biggest pet peeve. You don’t even need to know anything about computer enhancement to know that this is BS. Just wander into your local Best Buy and play around with the digital camera on display. Zoom the cameras in to the highest zoom available, and you’ll see that there most certainly is a limit to how much information can be contained in a picture.
Doctor Dolittle was fraught with inaccuracies. 
Next thing is one you is going to claim that pornos are unrealistic.
Now let’s not get too crazy with this skepticism, mmmkay? That’s just stress talking. Take a deep breath and everything will be ok.
Well, my pizza guy has never offered to show me the real pepperoni, but maybe it’s because my boobs are real …
This was once explained to me (on here, IIRC) that this is a concentration technique. By focusing on the small area contained in the flashlight’s beam, the agent is better able to concentratrate on a specific area. The upshot being that a slow, methodical sweep of the room via flashlight will reveal more evidence than staring at the entirety of well-lit room.
I still don’t buy it, though. They do it 'cause it looks cool.