|
|
Post by breesfan on Aug 29, 2015 23:51:21 GMT
Make sure your DVR is set to 'Mythbusters v. Jaws' It will not record if you just have it set to 'Mythbusters'. Adam just tweeted it.
I checked.. natrually it showed it was not recording. whew.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 30, 2015 5:19:41 GMT
Make sure your DVR is set to 'Mythbusters v. Jaws' It will not record if you just have it set to 'Mythbusters'. Adam just tweeted it. I checked.. natrually it showed it was not recording. whew. NOW I find out...  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 30, 2015 5:21:59 GMT
guess I'm not watching that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by breesfan on Aug 30, 2015 21:13:02 GMT
Yeah, thought it was a bit late for Adam to tweet. I confess, this shark myth just is not interesting to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by breesfan on Aug 30, 2015 21:13:43 GMT
Try on demand, see if that works.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 30, 2015 21:52:23 GMT
Try on demand, see if that works. I could probably find it online if I dug for it. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 31, 2015 7:09:12 GMT
You won't be sorry if you do. This was by far the best episode of the season so far. We've been griping about something or other in every episode up until now, but I dare say that the only gripe some us might have with this one will be Robert Lee claiming "they're using the exact same type of gun as was used in Jaws," when they're clearly not. They're using the exact same type of ammo, but not the same type of gun. However, held up against some of the horrifyingly bad tests they've done this season, I'd say that's a mistake that's as close to insignificant as you can get. Since some of you haven't seen it yet, I won't give anything away. I'll just say that for once, I can't put my finger on anything in terms of how the myths were tested and that makes me a happy Mythbusters fan  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 31, 2015 9:44:04 GMT
It had better be good.....
I have just about had enough of sharks everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 31, 2015 10:33:17 GMT
It had better be good..... I have just about had enough of sharks everywhere. Well, if you feel that way, you won't be impressed, because it's sharks everywhere. However, the myths are well researched, the tests well conducted and the results unimpeachable (at least as far as I've seen). For my money, that's exactly what I ask of a Mythbusters episode. For me, the topics are less important, as long as the tests are done well. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Sept 2, 2015 1:33:14 GMT
My backup this year, for when MB night and D&D night conflict, has been Amazon Video (the non-Prime version). This episode just popped up in my queue.
Some of Adam's comments had me thinking this was originally scheduled for Shark Week and got pushed back.
"Jaws" Exploding Shark Revisit: Their fake shark was an impressive piece of construction. I would have liked to hear from a shark expert on whether great whites can cough/puke up something stuck in their throat; Adam's comment to the camera implied it's possible, but they didn't actually confirm that. I think it would have been worth their while to take a scuba tank to a gun range, strap it down solid, make sure the glancing shot was hitting the same place each time, and see how many shots it took to weaken the tank to rupture levels. OTOH, there wasn't much padding in this episode, so unless they'd talked Discovery out of a 90 minute timeslot they weren't going to have time to air that test anyway. I think the shark stand-in did show that any bullets ricocheting off the scuba tank were going to hit the inside of the shark's mouth, possibly going into the shark's head.
Shark Repellents: That was an impressive result from the dead-shark essence. I know we've seen Adam doing some of the scuba work in the years since the first Shark Week special, did something go wrong with the prior ear-reassembly surgery he's had to force the special dive rig for him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 2, 2015 11:15:59 GMT
As far as I can tell it was made for Shark Week.
Adam had serious teeth problems during the filming of this episode to the point that he had to leave two days early to fly back to the US for an operation. I *think* he had to have his wisdom teeth removed. (Adam mentioned this on Tested,although he didn't mention what they were filming).
Having said that, I suspect that the diving rig was actually used because this is TV and you want to be able to see the hosts of the show as clearly as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Sept 4, 2015 2:46:35 GMT
You won't be sorry if you do. This was by far the best episode of the season so far. We've been griping about something or other in every episode up until now, but I dare say that the only gripe some us might have with this one will be Robert Lee claiming "they're using the exact same type of gun as was used in Jaws," when they're clearly not. They're using the exact same type of ammo, but not the same type of gun. However, held up against some of the horrifyingly bad tests they've done this season, I'd say that's a mistake that's as close to insignificant as you can get. Since some of you haven't seen it yet, I won't give anything away. I'll just say that for once, I can't put my finger on anything in terms of how the myths were tested and that makes me a happy Mythbusters fan I have not been able to see this episode yet. Did they mention the type of ammo? The M-1 Garand used in the movie is made for M-2 .30 ammo. Did they use a bolt gun with modern ammo? Most modern ammo will bend the operating rod of the Garand as the pressures are too high at the gas port. They actually make an adjustable gas port for modern ammo to prevent op rod damage. If using modern ammo the ballistics will be different. Not all 30.06 ammo is the same. I would assume if you had a Garand in he 70's when the movie was set you were shooting military surplus as it was only pennies per round. There are also armor piercing rounds with a steel core vs lead. This makes a big difference. It would also have been readily available as surplus ammo in the 70's (both AP and ball) In my own experiments. Lead core ball ammo will only dent a hot water heater. Fired from the same gun with the same powder charge at the same ranger AP ammo not only penetrates the front of the water heater, but the backside too going through and through quite easily. Current laws prohibit the manufacture of new AP rounds, but in most states is legal to own surplus ( California mileage will vary). |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 4, 2015 6:10:50 GMT
You won't be sorry if you do. This was by far the best episode of the season so far. We've been griping about something or other in every episode up until now, but I dare say that the only gripe some us might have with this one will be Robert Lee claiming "they're using the exact same type of gun as was used in Jaws," when they're clearly not. They're using the exact same type of ammo, but not the same type of gun. However, held up against some of the horrifyingly bad tests they've done this season, I'd say that's a mistake that's as close to insignificant as you can get. Since some of you haven't seen it yet, I won't give anything away. I'll just say that for once, I can't put my finger on anything in terms of how the myths were tested and that makes me a happy Mythbusters fan I have not been able to see this episode yet. Did they mention the type of ammo? The M-1 Garand used in the movie is made for M-2 .30 ammo. Did they use a bolt gun with modern ammo? Most modern ammo will bend the operating rod of the Garand as the pressures are too high at the gas port. They actually make an adjustable gas port for modern ammo to prevent op rod damage. If using modern ammo the ballistics will be different. Not all 30.06 ammo is the same. I would assume if you had a Garand in he 70's when the movie was set you were shooting military surplus as it was only pennies per round. There are also armor piercing rounds with a steel core vs lead. This makes a big difference. It would also have been readily available as surplus ammo in the 70's (both AP and ball) In my own experiments. Lead core ball ammo will only dent a hot water heater. Fired from the same gun with the same powder charge at the same ranger AP ammo not only penetrates the front of the water heater, but the backside too going through and through quite easily. Current laws prohibit the manufacture of new AP rounds, but in most states is legal to own surplus ( California mileage will vary). Okay, so maybe they weren't using the exact same type of ammo, then They were using 30.06, but probably not from the 70's for safety reasons. If the Garand tends to get damaged with modern ammo, that might be why they didn't use one for the test, but used a bolt action rifle instead. I couldn't identify the rifle, since I'm not that into bolt actions, but it was plain to see that they had the correct type of ammo. And yes, they did the double check with AP to get out in front of any criticism. They even took a modern .50 cal to it and it didn't make a difference. As I said, the results are pretty much unimpeachable this time around, which is why I went out on a limb and called it the best episode of the season. Up until now, most tests this season have been iffy at best and immediately challengable at worst. It was nice to see them get everything right for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Sept 4, 2015 11:38:54 GMT
I shoot ammo from the 1940's all the time in my Garand. I would argue it is safer as the gun was made specifically for that ammo. There are a few more failures to fire, but case failure rates are about the same as newer ammo. Surplus US ammo is getting harder to find. Even the Greek and other surplus is disappearing.
Wonder if the more catastrophic failure would be more dependent on the cylinder itself. Would an older, corroded more brittle cylinder fail in a different way.?
Then again we are talking about a movie "myth". Movie/viral videos just don't hit the "mythical" level in my book. The first couple of seasons with the folklorist were the best at tacking myths. Now we are more about replicating what we see on the big and small screens. Jumping the shark a bit in my opinion.
Will have to look for this on amazon
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2015 14:07:46 GMT
I shoot ammo from the 1940's all the time in my Garand. I would argue it is safer as the gun was made specifically for that ammo. There are a few more failures to fire, but case failure rates are about the same as newer ammo. Surplus US ammo is getting harder to find. Even the Greek and other surplus is disappearing. Wonder if the more catastrophic failure would be more dependent on the cylinder itself. Would an older, corroded more brittle cylinder fail in a different way.? Then again we are talking about a movie "myth". Movie/viral videos just don't hit the "mythical" level in my book. The first couple of seasons with the folklorist were the best at tacking myths. Now we are more about replicating what we see on the big and small screens. Jumping the shark a bit in my opinion. Will have to look for this on amazon the age and construction of the cylinder is a valid question. I'm going to have to see if I can dig the episode up while I'm on duty tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 4, 2015 18:09:26 GMT
I shoot ammo from the 1940's all the time in my Garand. I would argue it is safer as the gun was made specifically for that ammo. There are a few more failures to fire, but case failure rates are about the same as newer ammo. Surplus US ammo is getting harder to find. Even the Greek and other surplus is disappearing. Wonder if the more catastrophic failure would be more dependent on the cylinder itself. Would an older, corroded more brittle cylinder fail in a different way.? Then again we are talking about a movie "myth". Movie/viral videos just don't hit the "mythical" level in my book. The first couple of seasons with the folklorist were the best at tacking myths. Now we are more about replicating what we see on the big and small screens. Jumping the shark a bit in my opinion. Will have to look for this on amazon I've been saying for years that they need to get back to their roots of urban legends and steer clear of movie and TV stuff for a while, but that sort of seems to be a minority opinion around here. For some reason, a lot of folks seem to think that if it's not related to popular media, fans will lose interest. Some might, but considering urban legends were the root of the show and that was what got them a fan base in the first place, I'm inclined to think most would stick around, as long as the building, the testing and the storytelling is still solid. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 4, 2015 22:26:56 GMT
The reply from the Mythbusters production team would be 'If you can find an interesting, testable urban myth post it and it would be considered as seriously as everything else that comes across our desk'.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 5, 2015 6:41:35 GMT
I shoot ammo from the 1940's all the time in my Garand. I would argue it is safer as the gun was made specifically for that ammo. There are a few more failures to fire, but case failure rates are about the same as newer ammo. Surplus US ammo is getting harder to find. Even the Greek and other surplus is disappearing. Wonder if the more catastrophic failure would be more dependent on the cylinder itself. Would an older, corroded more brittle cylinder fail in a different way.? Then again we are talking about a movie "myth". Movie/viral videos just don't hit the "mythical" level in my book. The first couple of seasons with the folklorist were the best at tacking myths. Now we are more about replicating what we see on the big and small screens. Jumping the shark a bit in my opinion. Will have to look for this on amazon I've been saying for years that they need to get back to their roots of urban legends and steer clear of movie and TV stuff for a while, but that sort of seems to be a minority opinion around here. For some reason, a lot of folks seem to think that if it's not related to popular media, fans will lose interest. Some might, but considering urban legends were the root of the show and that was what got them a fan base in the first place, I'm inclined to think most would stick around, as long as the building, the testing and the storytelling is still solid. I have been busy in the show ideas threads with some real old time myths over the last year. Plenty to go on. You aint in the minority, its just we dont know how to persuade the researchers to suggest the ideas in a better way... If A&J are reliant on the researchers, many of our good ideas go wayside, as the researchers will only put forward what they want to show?... so how do we persuade the researchers to go old school?... Is this conversation too off topic, should it go in Watercooler, or even board suggestions.... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 5, 2015 6:42:10 GMT
The reply from the Mythbusters production team would be 'If you can find an interesting, testable urban myth post it and it would be considered as seriously as everything else that comes across our desk'. Reply as above?....(My last post) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 5, 2015 15:15:29 GMT
The reply from the Mythbusters production team would be 'If you can find an interesting, testable urban myth post it and it would be considered as seriously as everything else that comes across our desk'. Reply as above?....(My last post) Unless specifically tasked with finding something on a specific topic the researchers will tend to pass on anything that catches their eyes as being interesting and testable within the restrictions of a TV series. Ideas are then passed onto the producers, who will tend to either place them onto the list of possible myths for the show or dismiss them at that point - keeping in mind that they have a lot of ideas hitting their desk to say nothing of the existing list. On rare occasions an idea might be considered so good or ideal for something they are about to do they pick it up for testing there and then. Slightly more often they may like the sound of an idea and request more information on this from researchers*. Ideas are then passed around the 'round table' with all the producers present, including those from Discovery. Ideas are discussed and considered in greater detail in regards what would be interesting, how they could be tested and it seems what would actually be tested. In the latter case this can result in changing the specific myth if part of that is considered particularly interesting. (*This is why I say that when you are writing a myth up you should start with a short description as to what the myth is. Then to follow it with as much information as possible. The former is more or less what would be passed on to the producers as the 'sales pitch'. The latter is what would be passed on if they ask for more information, and where the researchers are likely to start looking when getting more information themselves. |
|
