Jump to content

Talk:Jamie Hyneman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Careers

How many of the careers attributed to Jamie on MythBusters are 'tall tales'? Captainmax 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me why Jamie's face is flushed so often on Mythbusters? I'm worried that one day he is going to have a stroke right on the show! --Jacqui M Schedler 04:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Special Forces?

Neither Jamie's bio at m5industries.com nor his bio at the Mythbusters official fansite list him as a past member of the Special Forces. I believe the sole reference to this comes from an on air comment from Adam Savage. Savage has also mentioned on air that Jamie spent time as a political prisoner, which was quite obviously a joke. --Great Scott 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been mentioned multiple times, including by the narrator as a rationalle for him shooting something with a HUUUUUGE gun at something.
Running joke? tregoweth 21:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a running joke. It's an intentionally-made exaggeration of Jamie's skills. Jamie never was Special Forces, but in my opinion, the marksmanship skills he displays are at least on par. Don't take my word for it on the subject of marksmanship, though; I'm just a civillian. Creamy helium 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamie can't shoot, didya see him with the 44 mag? Justforasecond 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was speaking of his skill with a rifle. Rifles and handguns transfer their recoil forces to the body very differently. Plus, as anyone even slightly familiar with firearms knows, the Smith & Wesson .44 magnum revolver has a recoil that is difficult for even the most experienced marksman to deal with.

Military.Com's DOD record search does not list any John,James or Jamie Hyneman as having served in the Special Forces.

Blendo

Anyone with a picture of Jamie's (or rather, M5's) Robot Wars robot Blendo? It's significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article.

There's one here: http://www.m5industries.com/images/battlebot-048.jpg 208.58.199.42 23:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture, while a cool moment on MythBusters... is a bad image for this article... you can't even see his face... he is facing the complete opposite direction. Maybe keep this one but lower in the page and have a better, front-on view at the top. Gohst 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a decent picture at the M5 industries site in the staff section. Captainstoat 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is a decent picture there that you would wish to use on WP, you'll need to refer to the process for requesting copyright permission. Once you have gone through the process and it's OK'd to place up, you will need to then drop the editprotected template onto this talk page to make the change. Thewinchester (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just last month, my family and I went to M5 Industries on a whim. Jamie happened to be standing outside, so we took a couple of pictures. I'll try to get one for you guys to use. Would that be okay? Please tell me if it is! 24.180.152.186 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please! If you're prepared to freely license the image, then go knock yourself out. If you're wanting attribution, upload it to Wikimedia Commons under the relevant Creative Commons license. If you need any help with this, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thewinchester (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think it was a simple (non-origional) defacement, but yesterday the page said he was gay. I was wondering if he actually is gay, and it might have been removed because someone *thought* it was a defacement. Adam talks about his wife and kids on the show, and Jamie never talks about his personal life. Will 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, looking at the user that added the gay comment, his history shows that he also changed "hyneman" to "hymen" in the article. *sigh*. Will 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall where, but I have seen at least one interview where he specifically said he is not gay and has been married for a while to the same woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.214.15 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

There's a lot of online banter about him being Gay, probably because a number of guys find him attractive, and that the show is filmed in San Francisco. Saxophobia 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[1]"Adam: I'd also like to answer an unasked question here — we're NOT gay! We're both happily married, and we're not even remotely gay. " --85.157.118.96 15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

It has come to my attention according to the birth year listed, 1956, and the current year, 2007, Jamie's age would actually be 51, not 50 as listed. DeniabilityPlausible 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He will continue to be 50 yrs old until 25 September 2007, when he turns 51. The template {{Birth date and age}} computes this, not an editor, so it will update when his birthday arrives. --WillMak050389 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for such an oversight. Thanks. DeniabilityPlausible 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

alleged death

I see no sources anywhere for this. Either one or more people is heavily trolling this, or the news media is really, really, really slow tonight. I requested RFPP for semi protection here. Is this true? Sources please. - Denny 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's dead. There's already amateur footage of his death on youtube. [vandalism truncated] R.I.P Jamie Hyneman We will miss your moustache.

I can confirm that his death was announced on TV. 66.109.196.40 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
He was killed while testing Blendo, it threw him into the sea and he drowned.
This was just the failed vandalism attempts of a group of misguided 4channers. Jamie is not dead and hopefully the article will not be vandalized to say so in the future. Mr.Hotkeys 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
RULES 1 AND 2! Also major vandalism, I'm watching it unfold right now. Daisenji
This is bullshit, and needs to be locked as there is another death edit right now. 70.122.208.181 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
He is not dead, and far from it. That's just one of the millions of stupid lies that people put on the internet. Ryan Got something to say? 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is his legal name James Earl Hyneman? Adam has called him James once before. In one episode (I don't remember which) he says "Danger is my middle name", to which Kari replies "I thought it was Earl." I put it on the article and it was deleted, so I'm not sure I'm correct. Winndm31 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also does not celebrate Christmas.

During the 2006 Christmas themed Special of Mythbusters, he has said that Christmas "was not his thing" and that he would be working on Dec. 25th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.117.34 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Religion

I think it is more than reasonable to state that Hyneman is an atheist. There are plenty of people who are against religion but not necessarily God, granted, but Hyneman said he was "adamant about the whole God thing". Can anyone honestly say that if you heard someone goes to church and prays but did not explicitly say he is a christian, we should conclude the matter is ambiguous? Furthermore if we demand that level of explicitness then we should also remove any reference to him being a skeptic since he never outright says that he is a skeptic, at least based on the transcript at the bottom.

Seriously thought, I've often come across this position before that we should not call someone an atheist unless every possible interpretation, no matter how remote, has been exhausted. I'm not sure if it is because people don't realize that apparently decent people like Jamie Hyneman can be atheists and we shouldn't brand them with a scarlet "A" unless they absolutely bring it upon themselves, or some other explanation. Please note I'm not alleging bigotry on Wryspy individually (who was probably not doing this intentionally) but rather it stems from a general social ambivalence towards agnostics and atheists. Sorry if I got too preachy at the end. Martin-C 10:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect (one hour later) that was way too preachy. Sorry I took it so far with the second paragraph. Still my argument stands in the first paragraph. Martin-C 11:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still speculation. If we have a source that says flatly he believes there is no God, we can call him an atheist. If the source says he figures there is probably no God or he doubts whether or not God exists, he's an agnostic. We cannot make statements about what is "likely" and be encyclopedic. He doesn't have to call himself the word atheist for us to use the word, but we would need a quote that 100% clearly fits the definition, and "against the whole God thing" leaves room for interpretation. Let the quote speak for itself. Let readers make their own inferences. And I'd have made the same kind of remarks had you said, "He is likely a cynophobe," after finding a quote that said he's against keeping dogs as pets.

Oh, yeah, and to address your example: If someone said they go to church and pray, I would not leap to the conclusion that the person is Christian. I know people who worship God in a Christian church because that's what is local and yet they flatly said to me that they themselves are not Christian.Wryspy 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well but my point was that if we adhere to that limited level of interpretation then we cannot say that he is a skeptic even though it is absurdly obvious that he is. In fact, the evidence Hyneman is an atheist is at least as strong as that he is a skeptic considering Jamie Hyneman was the one who brought the subject of god and atheism up in the first place to associate it with skepticism. I don't think we are going to achieve a workable compromise, as I have twice tried to reword the statement to make is more acceptable to others, and both have been rejected. Therefore I respectfully suggest we bring it to an administrator to settle the matter. Please change it once more so it qualifies for the 3 changes each in a 24 hour limit to invoke higher arbitration. Martin-C 05:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A MythBuster is, by definition, a skeptic. Wryspy 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for running into your commentary. Secondly, I have twice offered reasonable compromises that have been twice rejected and I believe that this issue is being held to a different and higher standard of evidence than most others for reasons I am not quite clear on but do not seem to be fair. Therefore I have chosen to file a request for non-binding mediation as a (hopefully) preliminary step. You may chose to agree to this non-binding resolution within 7 days (if I understand the procedure correctly). If you do not agree then it will go to binding arbitration. I want to make is clear again that I do not believe this is personal but rather the result of a general animosity towards atheism. Please follow this link: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jamie Hyneman As a good faith gesture, I will leave the page unedited until this dispute resolution is concluded. Martin-C 07:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a shred of animosity toward atheism. Believe me, you are SO far off the mark on this one. This is about letting readers make their own inferences. If you'd interpreted "I'm all in support of Democrats" (or Republicans or tree huggers, whatever) as a reason to say he is a Democrat or (much worse because it involves unencyclopedic speculative language) probably a Democrat, that would still be wrong to say. Let the readers make their own inferences. Compromises don't work when they're still wrong. Wryspy 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I will say that there is no stronger reason to think Jamie Hyneman is a skeptic (even though he almost certainly is) but according to your standard for atheism, nothing will count except for Jamie Hyneman actually saying he is a skeptic. Your argument that mythbusters are skeptics is logical and I agree with it, but it is still an inference. I can't find the original file of the interview, but as I recall, Jamie Hyneman was the one who brought up the subject of atheism in the first place, then he noted that he was "pretty adamant about the whole god thing" and he strongly identifies with skeptics and atheists. If anyone can track down another copy of the file, I would appreciate it. Regarding the mediation request, if a friendly debate emerges over the next week than comes to an agreement, I will retract my request for mediation. Until then, I choose to let it stand and I hope others will weigh in with their opinion. Finally I will say again that I did not accuse you of harbouring (Canadian spelling :) animosity towards atheism in particular and I don't think you are prejudiced. Let's keep things friendly. Martin-C 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Update. I managed to track down the link to the interview and have repaired it. As it turns out, Jamie says that he was not much of a skeptic before Mythbusters began (though Adam was) but that he was "pretty adamant about the whole God thing". Apparently his atheism introduced him to skepticism. I would encourage anyone to listen to the podcast beginning at 29:00 minutes. Best regards. Martin-C 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Then that's the quote the article should have. If he said he wasn't much of a skeptic before Mythbusters began but Adam was, that's a great quote. And then insert the quote that he was "pretty adamant about the whole God thing" instead of burying it in a reference not everyone will see.
But as to "according to your standard for atheism", no, you're still not getting what I said. If he said, "I believe God does not exist," then we can call him an atheist because we then have a quote that meets the definition, just like if we have information that meets the definition of skeptic, we can say that. But "pretty adamant about the whole God thing" could mean something other than atheist. He doesn't have to call himself atheist, but we have to have a better quote that clearly fits the definition before we tell readers what to think. Let them make their own inferences. Wryspy 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. First of all the mediation request was rejected. I do have the right to invoke binding arbitration at this point but I chose not to do so because I am encouraged by your subsequent modification. I don't want to start another edit war so I will make a suggestion here instead of modifying the main article: Why not simply say that Jamie Hyneman identifies with skeptics and atheists without specifically saying he is one? I will also enlarge the transcript so cover everything. What do you say? Martin-C 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That works. It's accurate. It leaves room just in case any part of the quote has been misunderstood, until a more clearcut quote comes along. It's great. See. We never needed arbitration. Wryspy 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made the changes. I jumped the gun on arbitration and I was wrong to do so. I also made the update to the transcript. Anyway, good to have debated with you Martin-C 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Deep Voice?"

Huh? They make fun of his stoic analytical demeanor. I've never heard anyone suggest he has a deep voice. It's frankly quite nasal. Am I being overly pedantic? :-) --Skidoo (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a free world, change it. I would describe his voice as monotone personally. 72.139.164.148 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam does a (for him) deep voice when impersonating J, to get the droning effect. That's where the idea comes from.137.205.100.252 (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Visual Effects?

Jamie isn't a visual effects expert, is he? Special effects yes, but not visual effects which are done in post production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.196.192 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this post, but we might be considered splitting hairs, plus his web site is called "M5 Industries Visual Effects" so the detail might not even be relevant to Jamie himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.194.176.157 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good photo?

Is the photo currently used in the article a good representation of who and what Hyneman is? It shows him sitting down, in front of a microphone, but he is not a talker (neither is Adam Savage, or the junior mythbusters), he is a doing. It would be much more fair towards him to bring a photo where he is shown in the workshop (and standing up), while he is doing something.--Peter Knutsen (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreeDaveDodgy (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. Also a generally unflattering shot 173.29.133.74 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The first two posts are from 2008. The current image is from 2010.--Drat (Talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased writer?

The article states "Hyneman identifies strongly with skeptics and atheists.[1]". The sources I checked provided no evidence to prove this statement. I also see no reason to mention this, whether true or not. Adam Savage's page had similar editing on it. As an avid and dedicated viewer of the show, I can say with some certainty that neither Adam nor Jamie are strong atheists. If anything, they seem impartial. It looks like the writer added irrelevant information to the article to promote their own views. As no evidence seems to back that statement up, and because of it's needlessness, I suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.140.20 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. DaveDodgy (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps reverting this and including the statement in question. Am I missing something or should the reverts be reverted themselves?--68.51.131.217 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Did you listen to the entire source linked there before determining whether it was adequate? Generally it's not a good thing removing sourced material; if anything, just add a {{cn}} tag to request more/better sourcing. You could also try googling this. DP76764 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Jamie makes his position very clear in the source provided pre-edit. This is Wikipedia at its worst - a mans own words being removed from his own article because some random person can say otherwise "with some certainty." And really, why wouldn't some random guy know Jamie's position better than Jamie, right? Go, Wikipedia! 69.81.118.243 (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As the "some random person" who started this discussion, I still think my main point is not being addressed: the writer of said statement is biased. Plus, I have 3 big problems with the sole source for the statement.1: It's an audio source. I couldn't even check it because it didn't work on my computer. 2: It's only ONE source for a very big statement. If I wrote "Jaime identifies strongly with scientologists" wouldn't it be proper to have several sources? 3: The source is biased. It is from "Skeptic Magazine"'s website, which is definitely pro-atheist. You can't count on a biased source to give reliable, impartial information about something it feels so strongly about.

Source Material is wonky, he said he is identified strongly with atheist and skeptics, that could mean anything, i mean if he was really as big of a skeptic that he is, he would go out and say it, while i agree the source is good, he could be anything, from deistic to non-demo, because plenty of people associate themselves with skeptics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.130.115 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it is wrong to label him as Atheist or any "religion" for that matter. He is a science TV show host.. it is not relevant at all. All such labels do is cause division and could hurt him and the show. I've tried changing it now and then, but someone keeps changing it back.. I guess he is trying to promote a cause. --User:EdmondDoc

Quite so. Disappointed with wikipedia yet, Edmond?137.205.183.109 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it does matter, especially with him. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not relevant. --93.221.197.190 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Middle Name?

I was just watching Youtube Live, and heard Adam refer to him as "Jamie Franklin Hyneman". Can anyone confirm or deny this? Lazylaces (Talk to me 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

During the YouTube Live show, Adam calls him "James Franklin Hyneman"... any idea what's up with that? bahamut0013♠♣ 01:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hah! That was close timing! You beat me by a second. bahamut0013♠♣ 01:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the actual shows, his middle name is referred to as Earl. 205.222.248.29 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1367178/bio confirms his middle name is Earl. Bananenpuree (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've spoken to Jamie directly and he told me his middle name is "Franklin". The "Earl" was used as an on-set joke that Adam repeat on-air and caused the confusion. --User:EdmondDoc

his name is definitely james franklin hyneman check any bio on him... im a huge mythbuster fan

Cameos

Would it be useful to mention all cameos or only movie cameos? webcomic cameo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.172.114 (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's mainly trivia, and just because some person made a character depicting him in some webcomic doesn't make it a cameo.--Drat (Talk) 10:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Past Careers

According to Season 1, Episode 14 he was in the special forces, and he owned a dive shop in the carribean, in addition to the other things he's done. Worth adding? Verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.217.120 (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the time they're just joking. He was never in the special forces. In Chinese Invasion Alarm, Adam jokes that Jamie worked as a miner in the 1920s. IIRC, the diving and salvaging stuff is true, though.--Drat (Talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Married to a "female" science teacher

"He has been married to a female science teacher at a local high school"

Is he gay? otherwise why would we point out that his wife is female? should we mention that he breathes air and stands upright as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.236.21 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

update: I removed "female" since I think assumptions are not *always* a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.231.98 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You could always introduce her name into the sentence, between commas, if you are worried.137.205.100.252 (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It's relevant because some executives at the network that picked up their show wondered if a show about two homosexuals near San Francisco, would fly. Wikipedia could just routinely, in the parts of the articles that deal with the things that do NOT make the person encyclopedic, begin the sentence with "A (hetero/homo)sexual, xyz has been married to three (wo)men, firstly to...". But that is perhaps imprecise. People, especially people marrying in the first 3/4 of the 20th century, could have a reason for getting married to a person of the gender opposite to their sexual desires. What I'm trying to say is that people might come to Wikipedia to find out if Hyneman is straight or gay, and their interest is encyclopedic if they are wondering if he and Adam Savage were romantically involved when they commended their show. That question is legit fodder for Wikipedia. We don't absolutely know for sure, of course, but the fact that the person Hyneman has been married to for a long time is female is a fact that people coming here to find out his relationship with Savage might find to be of considerable weight if not absolutely decisive. Therefore the gender of his spouse and the date of their marriage (which entails the LENGTH of their marriage) should be included. IDEALLY, sexual orientation would be meaningless except to the people involved. REALISTICALLY, sexual orientation can bear heavily on an encyclopedia's attempts to explain the trajectory of a person's life. It does have an influence beyond the choice of sexual partners. In Hollywood, it was a "problem" to be managed if it wasn't the "correct" orientation. In politics, sexual orientation has influenced elections. In sports and music, it has at times constrained careers. And, also in politics, both heterosexuality and homosexuality have had particular ways, varying by person, of propelling various political figures into adopting extreme right-wing AND extreme left-wing beliefs. When a person was born to U.S. military parents stationed in Italy and moved to the U.S.A. before their first birthday, Wikipedia will say in the first sentence "XYZ is an Italian-born American blah blah". If THAT fact, which has less influence over that person's life than anything, is encyclopedic, then their sexual orientation is too, even if their encyclopedic status doesn't arise from their sexual orientation.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:103:D4DB:AD9A:6C92 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Wavecam Reference

I just noticed an odd addition made to the article recently that claims that Hyneman worked on creating the "Wavecam" (the camera system that "floats" over the football field during a game). I checked the website, and did not see a mention of his name anywhere. Should that edit be undone, or is this true? WeatherGod (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wavecam, Skycam, Cablecam and Flycam are all different remote control cable based camera systems used in live sporting and entertainment events. Jamie and his company helped to develop the Wavecam. Edmonddoc (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) EdmondDoc

Is appropriate to hide on this article that Jamie Hyneman is atheist?

The wikipedia user "Edmonddoc" is constantly removing the fact that Jamie Hyneman is atheist saying "Frankly, I am trying to prevent financial and social damage to Mr. Hyneman". Anyone can read that in the edit-history of this article.

Like Jamie say: "Actually I'm pretty adamant about, you know, the whole God thing and it seems that skeptics are by and large atheists or something approaching that, which I strongly identify with. So it turned out to be a good thing and I have become enthusiastically part of it." He says that on December 12, 2006, in an interview on Skepticality, the official podcast of Skeptic. The recording of this interview is in here: http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticality/042_skepticality.mp3 (he say that in the minute 29).

This issue is a well known part of Jamie. He strongly identifies with it and is enthusiastic about it, so is no matter of anyone else to say if this fact most be hidden.

Is shameful that "Edmonddoc" think he knows better than Jamie Hyneman about itself.

If admitting been atheist can cause a financial and social damage to Jamie is something that Jamie already confront. Listen the interview!

So the big question is: We (the editors of this wikipedia article) need to save Jamie's "reputation" by hiding the fact that he already admits publicly that he strongly identifies with been atheist and he is enthusiastic about it, been part of the skeptical movement giving that interview?[1]

My answer (by InterlinkKnight): No, we are not the judges of the morality of others. If our job in wikipedia is to hide an information that someone may find harmful to that person's reputation without caring if that fact is openly admitted by the subject person of the article, then we need to delete many thing about Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Osama bin Laden, George W Bush, Kobe Bryant, O J Simpson, etc. in their wikipedia articles, because many of the scandals that they are part of it may be harmful to that person's reputation. Ha ha… that seems more like a joke.--InterlinkKnight (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside any contention about reputation or financial damage here, I'd say that the simple fact that Hyneman himslef has said it should remove any fears about consequences. I don't suppose that constitutes a BLP issue at all, and I'd say that it's actually relevant given his role as a prominent skeptic. It would be nice if there was an additional reliable source, something that wasn't first party, just to strengthen the article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can get a better source than this one. I mean, everyone here agree that the guys of Skepticality didn't fake or manipulate the interview so is a reliable source. Although an additional source is always welcome.--InterlinkKnight (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticality/042_skepticality.mp3

Excellent new image (transplanted from user talk)

(transplanted this from my talk and User:Bahamut0013's talk)... sweet pic, dude! --Kaini (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw it when I was browsing the USMC website for something else, and was about to upload it when I decided to see if it had already been, which it had. It's a shame that it's so hard to come by free images of the MythBusters at work, because the pages really could use some more images.
I've got some time off coming for Memorial Day, and plan to spend some time watching my DVDs and doing some work on the episode lists... I started this last winter, but wound up getting seriously sidetracked. If you're interested, we could collaborate on digging up some more images from Commons and dropping them in the articles. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Any idea what sort of licensing is applied to pics on twitter (well, specifically, twitpic)? - or is it up to the publisher? The reason I ask is that both Adam and Grant are very active on twitter, with all sorts of sweet shots of M5 et cetera. I might just ask them, I guess! --Kaini (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really sure. I know that Flickr lets the uploader choose different licenses; I imagine Twitter has something similar. You could ask the folks at Commons, they would know much more than I. If the licenses are compatible, then Twitter could be a gold mine! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just sent Adam a tweet. But dude has a quarter of a million followers! We shall see... --Kaini (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I think Adam would be amenable to submitting some media. You may wish to mention OTRS. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
hey, adam responded - '@davidmulqueen Of what specifically?'. this is a wonderful opportunity. what would best enhance, illustrate, and otherwise improve the wiki articles - detailed photos of stuff exploding is always nice, but there's more to the show than that. --Kaini (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, top of my list would be better pictures of all five core cast member, and maybe a few others. On top of that, any pics of the last seven years of experiments would be sweet! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 03:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent): well, i've asked about CC-by-SA (potentially flickr?) pics of Adam, Jamie, and M5 - anything else is just bonus. it's really nice to get feedback so fast; not the first time i've had to eat previous 'twitter is useless' words, actually. edit - also made Adam aware of this talk page. --Kaini (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyneman vs the Taliban

http://www.philly.com/philly/neighbors/main_line/133784798.html Villanova researchers seek ways to beef up military armor

Notable enough to include? Hcobb (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Catchphrase - "Well, there's your problem"

The not-particularly-authoratative site lists Jamie and Mythbusters as the source for the popularity of the phrase "Well, there's your problem". Can anyone find a better source, or is KYM sufficient to add this to the page? Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Atheism

Looking at all the controversy, I knew I had evidence, so I went back and dug up a 2011 interview with Adam Savage in which he explicitly states, "Both Jamie and I are atheists."

He also mentions that Jamie said, in the car on the way to accept their Harvard Humanist award, "I don't really know how to approach this [referring to the speech they were to give]. Should we tell them... I mean, should I tell them that I think religion is stupid?"

Sounds conclusive to me. 24.222.244.70 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope.137.205.183.109 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

So... he met this science teacher? Did they get married? TehAnonymous (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Added Info and Ref to The Jato Rocket Car but Change listing in history is incomplete.

I happend to hit submit a little faster than I should have and it should read

The Jato Rocket Car myth has now be concluded with both the First revisit and with the second Revisit Titled Jato Rocket Car: Mission Accomplished and was the first episode of the current season.

Pokesomi2013 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion atheist

Well, this is pretty inaccurate. At most, it should be marked as "none" since you can't state that atheism as a religion. Note that "Adam Savage" is marked as "none (atheist)". Atheism is mostly the opposite of a religion. It is a disbelief in Theist beliefs, which are strongly in accordance with the definition of religion prerequisite. Please, can someone correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xnerdz (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Religion: Atheist vs. None (Atheist)

I'd like to clarify my point on the religion clause. Originally it said "Religion: Atheist" and I changed it to "Religion: None (Atheist)". Someone here suggested that if his religion is "none", then we should remove the reference altogether. I disagree. The thing is, according to this very article, Jamie's atheism is something that he strongly identifies with. And atheism is relevant to "religion" because it's a position on religious matters. However, writing that his religion equals atheism or atheist is simply wrong because Atheism is not a proper religion name. There is no such religion as "atheism" or "atheist". -- Northern (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jamie Hyneman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tested dot com

Tested dot com was alway credited in the past as "Jamie and Adam". Then the tested.com website dropped the Jamie around the time Mythbusters ended. So I edited this article. Now (Jan 2016) tested.com is back to showing "Jamie and Adam". So I've edited it back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdeacon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit murky, isn't it. He seems to be a silent partner, but not keen on taking part in AV presentations.137.205.100.252 (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamie Hyneman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamie Hyneman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Marksmanship?

Marksmanship? Hardly on par. Anyone could shoot a fixed target at very close range with a rifle, sighted in or not. I’d say that myth is debunked. 72.42.184.72 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Hyneman/Archive_1&oldid=1142765471"