Talk:MythBusters/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Who draws the blueprints? I see to recall in earlier eps (yeah, I'm too lazy to check) that Adam and/or build team folk would actuall draw experiemetns and stuff on the blueprint paper, but nowadays, it's almost always just the myth title by an unseen hand. Any info on the blueprints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHYPO (talkcontribs) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • In one of the "MythBusters Raw" videos on the discovery website, you can see the actual shooting of a blueprint being drawed, before it is speeded up. The person drawing them is a cartoonist called Dan Clowes. I don't know if he does all the blueprints for the show, though. --Geoced (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I do know that the first season had adam drawing it...not sure about rest Matthew 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10minnickm (talkcontribs)
  • Dan Clowes does most of the drawing, but occasionally Adam or Jamie will draw or write on the blueprints, but this is usually obvious. ~Churba —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's remarkable that the blueprints are translated and redrawn in other countries, but seems like the new text is written on a computer - (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The latest videos of Jamie touring M5 explicitly state that the build team have their own workshop. Should the lead (indicating main filming at M5) be altered to reflect this? TheHYPO (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

By that he probably just means they have a section section within the main M5 building. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think they actually have their own building, but from the various parking lot shots of the two shops, they are either on the same lot or back to back. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this what the references to M6 and M7 are? The former was the first separate site, but it didn't work out. Autarch (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


I think the best solution here is to consolodate all of the info in the "Buster" section here into List of MythBusters cast members#Buster. Then this page's buster section can be cut down to a paragraph or two with a "main article:" link to the additional cast page. TheHYPO (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going to to be helpful here I would say Buster is not a cast member. He's a crash test dummy. T.Neo (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is true, but he is not notable enough to deserve his own page (in my opinion) and that leaves the options of including him here, or including him on that page. Since he was already listed on that page, I decided that the most efficient route would be to include him there so there is not a big section in this article on one relatively minor element of the show (buster). The cast members page has a section on "non-human" cast. If the show wasn't non-fiction, the page would be characters, not cast - he would be more appropriate as a character than cast. TheHYPO (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. T.Neo (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Buster is regarded (however jokingly) by the cast members as a real member, so I think leaving him as is works. Ekcrbe 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a criticism section? — BQZip01 — talk 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source on some published critisism of the show, you can absolutely start a section. If it's just a place to say "some people think that..." with no sources, then no. TheHYPO (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no known sources of criticism of the perfection that is Mythbusters (sic). Just because any first year college physics student can find fault in many of their implicit assumptions, citing explanations based on newton's laws does not meet the stringent rules of their wikipedia protectors.

A common first year calculus problem involves calculating the optimum speed to run through falling rain to minimize wetness. The Mythbusters experiment had fundamental design flaws, but their math-deficient protectors refused to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I own the Mythbusters DVDs, and have watched some shows a number of times. I quote the Mythbusters, etc., however I strongly agree with BQZip01. The TV show is juggling ratings, cost, audience interest and knowledge, viability, along with (as they've said in the show) the wishes of the producers. This isn't a scientific show, where the professional reputation of Savage and Hyneman will suffer irreparable damage if they say something incorrect. The "give and take" speculation even endears them to the audience. It can be expected, therefore, that they make mistakes. The point could be made, limited in extent: four or five sentences, with quotes from their own web site. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to spoil things, but even professional scientists make mistakes. Mythbusters is remarkable for clearly revealing its reasoning and test procedures, and its willingness to revisit controversial topics. I feel the show gives a better representation of what science is really about -- including open criticism and argument -- than anything I've seen in 50+ years of watching TV. As for the walking/driving-in-the-rain question... It's been around for ages. The first issue of Recreational Mathematics Magazine, published 50 years ago, had an article on it. It's not clear to me how one would rationally examine the question other than the way they did it (actually walking in artificially created "rain" wearing an absorbent suit). If I were going to critize Mythbusters, it would be for its failure to hide the fact that Adam and Jamie don't really like each other, and that nobody likes Adam, who has been maliciously abused on several occasions (most notable the paintball shooting and the high-voltage shock). (I'm not ignoring the fact that Adam is hardly perfect, and has behaved badly on several occasions.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnings and Censorship

Living in British Columbia, Canada, I can confirm that Mythbusters does indeed have several 'Do not try this at home' safety warnings spaced throughout each episode while playing on Discovery Canada. Thus, I am removing Discovery Canada from the list of broadcasters that don't show the warnings. If someone is able to produce proof that it is indeed missing on Discovery Canada, please add it back. Talonird (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Has this article been nominated for Good Article status? Seems to me that it's got the qualifications. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is anywhere near being ready for a GAN. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It does need some copy-editing issues reasolved, and the images need to have their non-free rationales re-formatted. It probably needs a peer review, so I'm going to submit it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader

McDuffee, Keith (April 18, 2008). "MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader". TV Squad. Retrieved 2008-04-18.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Would make for an interesting investigation. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not clarify when initially posting this, this is a potential source that could be used in the article. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Utilized citation to add info to the article. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

The whole article looks more like a PR page maintained by Mythbuster staff. They continously fail to use a scientific method, they have failed in using the right equipment, and at times they blatantly use the wrong materials to accieve a FAIL, speciffically in things that should fly, but will not due to materials being sevaral times their supposed weight.

Examples include the car NOT blown over by a 747, the pressurised water&air rocket that failed to lift Buster. (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with, and also as well. This show is not rigorous enough to be considered scientific. While not pseudo-scientific, most of the things they test are effectively untestable. (especially the one where they let off dynamite in cement trucks, no control group at all...). Besides that, most of the things they test are not general concepts or are useful in any particular engineering application. Thanks for your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the myth dictated a 737 not a 747 (if you want to complain about the lack of factual accuracy of others, it makes you look more credible if you get your own facts straight), and secondly the reason for that problem was that the Mythbusters insurance company wouldn't allow the experiment to take place. The engines that they hired where the most powerful they could realistically get their hands on, however they would be nothing like as powerful as the engines on a 737 at full thrust. Mythbusters has never purported itself to be 100% scientifically accurate, its main aim is to be an entertainment show, nor do the hosts call themselves scientists, they are special effects guys. When you have to ad-lib a rig to test a myth that is at best sketchy in its confines (as is the case more often than not with Mythbusters), you will inevitably make the odd mistake, and their revisits are aimed at rectifying these situations. Being a science minded person, I actually find the things that they have achieved very impressive considering the fact that they aren't scientists, however the bottom line is that the show is not aimed at being a 100% scientifically accurate show, and most of the people who complain about its lack of accuracy are generally the kind of people who sit in front of their TV screens picking fault with everything. ( (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

If you feel the article needs balance, a "Criticisms" section might be an option. Your biggest hurdle is that any such criticism will need to be very, very well sourced if it is to remain in the article. Just your say-so that they screwed something up is not enough. You will need to source very well your stuff or it is almost certain to be reverted right back out of the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And the fact that they have admitted this, and accept audience critisism, and that even the car that was blown over was re-tested in a later episode. Not every scientist gets everything right every time. If you have SOURCES for your problems with the show, you can include them. TheHYPO (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If I need a "source" for 75489072349+1=75489072350, I can't assert it here. Some of mythbuster's claims are almost that obvious to college-level students of math and physics, however, no authoritative books would waste space using them as examples. I am starting to suspect that a mythbusters insider is involved with editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And if this were an encyclopedia for science and physics students, you would have a valid point. But... it's not. And as such things need to be explained simply and, not sources but, third-party sources need to be provided to eliminate bias and POV pushing. I don't know how familliar you are with wiki etiquette but the charges you are leveling are very inflammatory and insulting. unless you have some level of proof the best way to proceed is to find contrary sources (not physics text books with theories but others who have done the same thing and succeeded) and post them. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be section stating that their results should not be taken as absolute truth like most people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed, what bothers me and i'm a lot of people is that on their show they constantly refer to what they are doing as science and i think it is misleading. the problem is that they go "through the motions" of science, forming a hypothesis, isolating variables etc. with any actual understanding the scientific method and scientific integrity. they are doing the public a disservice and i think they are excellent example of cargo cult science —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between "science" and "scientific fact". If I do a single experiment, it is still a science experiment. It may require a number of repeated attempts to be considered scientific proof, but that does not negate scientific content and relevance. Again, if you have ARTICLES or SOURCES to cite, it is perfectly appropriate critisism for this article, but your own personal opinions aren't what wikipedia is here to broadcast. Furthermore, they don't claim to always get it right, or they wouldn't be so open to revisit myths. TheHYPO (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no source for criticisms because it's unbelievably obvious to anybody with basic knowledge of the subject. Besides, MythBusters is just getting too stupid with cohosts. "Hay i'm gonna create a rocket using a fan, a tube, a cone, and a mister" which is just... a forced-air heater. Exactly like the one in my garage. MythBusters is interesting, but unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest a middle ground regarding the scientific/non-scientific bit. It could be said that they endeavour to be scientific, however budget, insurance, practicality, 'incompetence' and the need to be entertaining often interfere with this aim. This can be demonstrated by the fact that they often have to revisit experiments, sometimes several times.

This gets around the requirement for an external citation, as it takes evidence from the show itself. It also would help the article to convey the context in which viewers should view the results in a balanced way. (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)neil

Since nothing on the show or in the article declares the scientific accuracy I feel that decrying something that was never in question is a tricky situation. We have to be careful not to intimate that the Mythbusters think they are being scientific in the first place. To suggest that they endeavor to be scientific is just as misleading. We have no justification for asserting that they are trying to conduct scientific experiments. More to the point, they are trying to create real-world experiments, decidedly a different thing. Padillah (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the people so quick to criticize Mythbusters know zip about science. Science is ultimately about "asking the right question", and Mythbusters generally does this very well. I have an 99th-percentile IQ and attended Caltech. If I thought Mythbusters was guilty of consistently sloppy thinking or poorly designed experiments, I wouldn't watch it.

What, exactly, is the difference between "real-world" experiments and "scientific" experiments? One requirement of a valid experiment is that the test conditions do not meaningfully alter what it is you are trying to test -- in other words, that the experiment reflects "real-world" conditions. Any experiment that did not duplicate or mirror real-world conditions would be, by definition, "unscientific".

I have no right to put words in the mouths of the deceased, but I think both Frank Capra and Edwin Land would have loved Mythbusters. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hero Worship

This thing reads like pure hero worship; "the Mythbusters will test every reasonable scenario" for example is ridiculously non-NPOV. Reading the preceding section (titled "biased article") makes this even more clear. It's like a religious cult that will not allow dissent in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I adore this show! I really lov t. And I also agree... this article reads a little too glowingly and stops short in providing all the information that one could want. (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Because of the length of time that has passed since the template was added, as well as the fact that [[1]] the User in question does not have this article listed as either being read or as an article they are currently recording, I suggest that the template be removed. mauler90 (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but why not ask the user personally before you remove it. TheHYPO (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I am currently waiting for a response on the users talk page; however, they also did not respond too a question about it from May 21, so I am not very optimistic. mauler90 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And it's not July 11th and still nothing from the original editor. I'm removing the tag. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Plausible rating - rewrite?

The second paragraph of the Plausible rating section needs to be re-written, as it sounds speculative and OR-ish in its current form. Is there any documentation of Jamie and/or Adam talking about how frequently the rating is used compared to Confirmed or Busted? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

News / linkdump

I assume you've all read this all over the Internet, but in case you haven't:

Arphid Watch: Mythbusters and RFID - Adam Savage explains why there isn't going to be a segment on RFID security ever.

Shinobu (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to kill or seriously retrofit the "equipment" section. Right now it reads pretty much like a big list of any object someone has seen them use two or three times on the show. I believe it is fairly trivial to note that they use Quick-releases or servos or accelerometers... it is incidental to the show itself and it just happens to be something that someone has decided is "cool" and should be noted. They use hammers and paint and wood and beams and blow torches and fire extinguishers frequently, but since these are seen as "common" items, no one has mentioned them. I don't think servos are any different. They are merely tools used to accomplish the build they are doing. Shockwatch and Accelerometers are merely a devices used to measure a variable... no different than rulers, protractors, electricity multimeters...

This section should either be killed entirely, or rewritten in wording much reduced. I just tried to start an example here, but I hoenstly can't think of a phrasing that sounds encyclopedic and not trivial, other than "here are a bunch of things they use a lot that I personally thought were cooler than just a hammer and some wood". I'm going to try again:

In testing myths, the Mythbusters regularly make use of their warehouses which are well stocked with typical and uncommon building materials. To gauge results that don't yield numerical quantities, the teams commonly make use of several types of equipment which can provide other forms of observable effects. When testing physical consequences to a human body which would be too dangerous to test on a living person, the Mythbusters commonly use analogs; initially, they mainly used crash test dummies (most notably one they named Buster) for observing blunt trauma injury, and ballistic gelatin for testing penetrating trauma. They have since progressed to using Pig carcasses when an experiment requires a more accurate simulation of human flesh, bone, and organs. They have also occasionally molded real or simulated bones within ballistics gel for simulations of specific body parts.

I'm going to stop there, because, as I'm writing this, I'm realizing that a very similar paragraph already exists under "Format", which makes this whole comment rather stupid. If it is already disussed in Format, why is there a pointless trivial list right below of it many of the same things? I'm therefore killing the materials list, and perhaps moving material/procedural-based stuff from "format" to a subsection. TheHYPO (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


I killed the little note on RFID, because I feel it's trivial. Noting the references I just added, from the Last HOPE conference, Discovery has killed at least one other episode due to advertiser concerns (that Adam mentioned at this conference - could be many others), and has killed lots of other ideas in general. TheHYPO (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the actual link in the last HOPE ref? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but at this point, I have killed the controversy section again. Since it was all (apparently) a misunderstanding, and a 3rd party "This is what I heard" statement from Savage is fairly unencyclopedic when confronted with a challenge from other partys directly involved, I'd say this rates as simply a trivial misquote by Adam, and doesn't rate as a major controversy that in two months anyone will care about other than trivially. TheHYPO (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now there is no text indicating that they have killed shows or stories based on advertiser pressure. Shouldn't this atleast be in the warnings and self-censureship part? Carewolf (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters Live

Reporting from the Mythbuster's Live show 10/5 in Portland Oregon from [Portland Metblogs] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talkcontribs) 00:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Length Episodes

Would a link to Full length Episodes be appropriate here? (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hosted where? If we're talking somewhere on, then they might have a place on one of the episode sub-pages. If it's hosted most anywhere else, then there are copyright issues, and I would likely say we should not do so. I played with a similar situation with a reality show page I heavily edited. I put large numbers of links in to clips on directly, but I did not and could not use links to youtube versions of the clips. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jess Nelson

Did Jess win the viewer building contest as stated in the article? I though it was the guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the girls were able to actually accomplish the burn at the specified distance, while the guys' rig couldn't adjust and thus the girls were deemed the winners. I don't have the episode on hand though. I could be wrong. TheHYPO (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

So much of this article is from unsourced material. ANY material that is unsourced must be deleted. If anyone can find a source for it, by all means, PLEASE reinstate it. However, I can not, in good faith, let such things be said as "fact" without a source. Thank you. YcOaDtA

That's a very draconian interpretation of our guidelines. Any potential libellous material on a living person must be removed immediately. Anything else can be treated with WP:DEADLINE. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, edit warring is usually not a productive avenue to pursue one's agenda. DP76764 (Talk) 06:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many edits being reverted, and for even more "draconian" reasons than my own. As for your DEADLINE reasoning, let me enlighten you with a sentence from your own *gasp* reference.
Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content will earn you far greater kudos.
It's not about all the BS quantity you can add. It's about what is verifiable, and therefore "quality" material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YcOaDtA (talkcontribs)
There's no point gutting the article just because there isn't a source for every single assertion made. There is no controversial material in the article, so while, yes, the references need to be improved, that can be done over time, working with the material we have. It's just a TV show, not the freaking Palestine conflict. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Ditto with Closedmouth. Please stop edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed; simply gutting the article to satisfy your desire to not see any unsourced material is counterproductive and in bad faith. That's what the cite tag is for. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Typically, the remedy of deletion on wikipedia articles is saved for, as mentioned, liablous or mis-attributive statements, or for facts that you actually believe to be wrong or misleading. If you are deleting stuff like "The show is produced for discovery" just because it doesn't have a citation, that's called "being a wp:DICK". At very most, you should add a {{fact}} tag to such statements. Of course if you wanted to be productive, you could easily go out and add a source for that fact, and actually HELP the article instead of hurting it. TheHYPO (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Busted" myths

There were a couple of myths that they "busted" (Beating a speed camera is not possible and jet exhaust will not topple a car) that Top Gear (UK) showed were actually possible. Some note should be made of incorrect conclusions reached (there might be more, but I haven't watched the show that much).Pubuman (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as original research if one simply uses Top Gear as a source to show that these were possible? (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My question would be "To what end?" Why is there a need for external forces to definitively show some conclusions are false? Besides, you don't need a different show to do that. Adam and Jamie have, more than once reversed decisions because they were wrong initially. In point of fact the "Jet topples car" was never in question. It was taken from a Brazilian newspaper and they did revisit it and prove it possible, along with a bus and plane. What more would the external show demonstrate? That they are wrong in Britain too? In short, what does it add to the article? Padillah (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Their first conclusion was that it was NOT possible to topple a car. Top Gear DID topple a car. Myth Busters later toppled a car. How did you get to the "that they are wrong in Britian too?" bit? Pubuman (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Umm, they couldn't topple the car, because they couldn't use a real plane, only two much smaller jet engines (because of insurance issues). They DID say at the end of THAT episode that this myth is TRUE, it actually happened, it was reported in newspapers. And the other bit could also only show that the speed cameras in the UK are worse than the ones on MythBusters :P (And to drive 170 mph to not get a speeding ticket is insane.) CyberDragon777 (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


We will need a book section (i guess at the bottom of the article) with a list of mythbuster books and a bit of information about them. One of the books will be Busted (the page hasnt been created yet) - which is a book containing 17 myths that could happen to the average person. De Mattia (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Blurred Commercial Logos

Can anyone add material on this subject? Is it a pitch for product placement fees? A wrongheaded approach to percieved copyright? I find it a needless and annoying distraction from the I'm sure many others do... Benvenuto (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject is already covered. Look for the section titled "Warnings and self-censorship". - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask about something I saw. In episode 16 they tried stopping bullets with a book. And I noticed they had tape over the title of the book, so we don't see what the title was. I wondered why they did that?
And, in episode 84 they tested a hardcover book against a sword. Did they cover up the title again? I wonder what book they used? Thanks. (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)NotWillDecker


Shouldn't the article say something about available DVDs, as most other TV series articles do? –Kloth (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Myth Buster Expert Died in Fall

Erik Gates just died during the filming of an episode ( I am not an editor, don't know how interface with the wikipedia format (in terms of including links and references), but this seems like it should be included if someone wants to pick it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he died in a "work related accident". None of the sources covering this indicate that it was during filming of anything for this show. DP76764 (Talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Savage at the Maker Faire

Adam Savage at the 2010 Maker Faire probably has some good information for this article and its related articles: | =/\= | 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kari pregnant?

It looks like Kari might be pregnant -- she's wearing dresses a lot more than usual in what are, I believe, the most recently filmed segments. Given the non-linear nature of shooting and broadcast, it's hard to be sure. And is this newsworthy, even if she were? It'll break even more fanboys hearts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First off "wearing dresses" is not a proper citation. We'd need to find confirmation in some news source before putting it int the article. Second, "Fanboy", while not directed at anyone, can be taken personally, please be careful with it's use. Padillah (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree any woman wearing dresses or even putting a pound or three is hardly proof of pregnancy. And it also bears little relevance in general. If she were, it could mean a Pregnancy Special "We put Kari to the test in the only expirement in Mythbusters history to START with a bang". Heh imagine the disclaimer at the start (US broadcast only): Adam: "Don't try this at home." Jamie: "You have to be joking, I'm not saying anything. I want my agent." As for the fanboy comment, it was meant in a lighthearted fashion.

Question remains, hypothetically so far, if Kari is pregnant, is that worthy of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My answer would be no. That would be of relevance to her personal biography, not the show itself. ( (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

She has her own article; go debate it there. This has absolutely nothing to do with this article unless she, at some point, it causes her to leaves the show or some other actual bearing on Mythbusters, the subject of this article. TheHYPO (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with yes at this point. In the episode where the Build Team tested if a person could curve a bullet, as in the movie Wanted, Kari was encouraged to wear a bullet-proof vest, 'cause she was shooting for two. (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with no at this point as it is a personal thing with Kari and more appropriate to discuss on her own talk page not here on the Mythbusters talk page. Brothejr (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to put this to rest, yes, she was most certainly pregnant on the show. She states at one point that she is six months pregnant, only to be seen no longer pregnant in the very next episode. It's obvious that she had a baby at some point over the past few years, and that the shows were aired in a nonlinear fashion. This really had no significant bearing on the show itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Percentage ratio

Can someone add a performance ratio for their tests. Preferably in this format.

Confirmed - # plausible - # Busted - # Total Experiments - # KillerSim187 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerSim187 (talkcontribs) 18:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Very simply, I've removed "Penn and Teller's Bullshit" from the list of similar television shows. While they sometimes use maybe a chart or a graph, or talk to someone in a related field, Penn and Teller's Bullshit is based largely upon the opinion of the hosts. Additionally, most of Penn and Teller's Bullshit episodes are aimed at common misconceptions regarding religion, morality, rumors among the popular media, politics, and other things of a sociopolitical nature. Mythbusters wouldn't touch these topics with a ten foot pole. The shows are not particularly similar, and though I do have an admiration for both shows, I believe the association is incorrect. Would appreciate someone correcting the format of this edit on the discussion page. I don't edit wiki often. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


It says that the myths can be busted, plausible, or confirmed. But if they don't have the technology or resources to successfully test the myth they call it inconclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation 49 doesnt work

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what looks to be a Chinese language version (at the the video matches the description of Jamie wearing armour in front on the paintball thing) (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RFID controversy

Anyone care to add something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"such as Florida so do some alligator experiments"

English is not my native language so please forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that be "Florida to do some..." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by AussieLegend August 18, 2011. Nutster (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


MythBusters has been accused of rigging experiments, either intentionally or by ignorance, to arrive at desired results rather than actual results; Amongst the most pointed of these was “Pirate Ammo”, in which chains and silverware were fired out a non-naval cannon in what they called a “busted myth” when, in fact, had they been used in the manor intended (and preferably out of a naval gun) they would have worked.
The question is, ¿how does this controversy apply? ¿How do we address this? A. J. REDDSON

If you have reliable sources which point these issues out then create a new section titled Criticisms and just make sure you cite what you list there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
¿Do you just go through my contribs list to harass me? At any rate, my source is Time Life Books “Fighting Sail” (The Seafarers series), chapter 2 as I recall. In this document, they list chain shot and how it is used (as anti-rigging/mast ammo, to disable an enemy vsl), whereas these “scientists” used it against a pig in an anti-personnel capacity. Had they used it in the intended fashion they would have found the myth proven. A REDDSON
You'll need to provide that as a source along with at least one other reliable source for verification (See WP:V) as almost anyone can pay to have a book published. The book itself does exist (ISBN-10 0316849251 and ISBN-13 978-0316849258) and can be used as a source. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Two sources, ¿huh? ¿And Time-Life Books being questioned? Very well. I’m not terribly keen on using websites as references, but here’s two example I could find just from a basic Google search while sitting on the toilet: discusses “chain shot” very briefly:
“His display told how chain shot was designed and used to take down masts on opposing navy's ships.”
Of questionable value by the author’s own admission is the supporting statement:
“When I was back at Wilderness, I was told by someone there (another tourist, I'm sure) that the Union had used chain shot to take down the trees and clear portions of the battlefield there.”
This line actually appears earlier, but is useful in that is shows an accurate usage of chain shot, after a fashion (taking down trees is essentially the same as sawing down masts, as chain shot was secondarily intended to do).
Another site currently blocked by Wikipedia under “Uses of Grapeshot” says:
“Grapeshot also led to the use of chain shot, a variant in which each ball was connected by chain and caused massive damage to ships' sails and rigging.” (I am currently in the process of getting an unban applied to the site or at least the page; Bear with me in the interim.)
At any rate, the matter at hand is not just the chain shot case, but overall controversy of the show of, put bluntly, shoddy workmanship in their experiments. A. J. REDDSON
I am also loathe to use Wikipedia as a reference for a Wikipedia page, but the Chain Shot page (incorrectly titled “Chain-shot”) also say it was used against sails, rigging, and masts. A. J. REDDSON
Not just 2 sources... 2 RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE sources! The website you linked to appears to be self-published and as such it CANNOT be accepted as a source, no self-published website can be! Also: Using wikipedia or any other wiki as a source is just as bad. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
We are missing the forest for the trees; There have been complaints about MANY of their “experiments” including Archimedes Laser, Pissing on the Third Rail, Log Canon, and others.
There does not need to be an itemized list of every single test they did wrong, only a blurb that there IS controversy and what the nature of it is. A. J. REDDSON
Any such content requires citations from reliable sources in support. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
All of a sudden, ¿eh? Very well, I will work on that.
And then, when you’re done dodging, maybe one of you could get around to answering the original question, which is how it should be addressed. Since no one seems to want to and is too busy digging in their heels about being wrong, I am proposing: A sub-heading under “Conclusions of the experiments” of “Concerns” (or something like that) and reading something fairly blasé, such as “Some experiments have been conducted under conditions modified from that of the original event, or otherwise less than faithful/perfect reproduction of the original event. This has lead to inconclusive conclusions, when the Myth was declared otherwise. To date the most significant example of this is the experiment in which a car is flipped over by the exhaust of a jet engine, which they declared busted, but later found original news footage of the aftermath.” (This is the only case wwhere they admitted their mistake.)Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I answered the question already. You decided to cast the assumption of good faith aside and asked if I were stalking you. If your thinking wasn't so clouded you might would realize that I was agreeing with you & trying to assist. I agree that many of their experiments are flawed. SO...if you have citations at hand which bolster the position, then create a new section header and write it. If someone has a problem with it, they may revert, discuss (or both) here on the talk page. No one is going to do this for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not reply to ad hominem attacks, thank you. A REDDSON
None was given.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of any attacks, ad hominem or otherwise. You're just being given good advice, which you really need to start accepting in the same spirit in which it was given, otherwise your efforts here are unproductive and a little disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Since I am being held to a higher standard than others, I am presenting better than average evidence: I chose to ignore discussion boards, blogs, and the like as it is too easy to comment, make any allegation/aspersion, then bail out and watch the fireworks (which is unfortunate, because there are some which presented specific, measurable challenges to the conclusions), and focused only on scholarly articles:
[MythBusters (Larry CAMAROTA).
“There are many who feel that the methods on MythBusters are unscientific. To a certain degree, these critics are correct… However, many of the myths are 'busted' simply because Adam and Jamie don't manage to recreate them, or because of some factors that have been ignored by the experiment.”
[mythbusters (Clavius webmaster)]
His premise appears to be to say that they screwed up; That certain photos created by the pair do NOT prove what they claim it proves.
[a Q and A, SAVAGE and HYNEEMAN admitted they make mistakes:]
How often do fans question your results? Have you had any diehard science/physics freaks tell you you're wrong? Are there more "myth revisits" planned because of this feedback? How does it feel to have your decisions nitpicked?
ADAM SAVAGE -- Fans question our work all the time. Constantly. Fully 10% of the email I get is people telling me we got it wrong. I appreciate all the comments/criticism, etc., and much of the time, the criticism leads to a revisit, or a rethinking of our methodology. We don't claim to be infallible, and we're always totally willing to revisit our results. I like to think that places us in good company. The only criticisms I dislike are the ones that dispense with common courtesy. Sometimes I'll get just a sentence telling me that I'm an idiot, with no greeting and no signature. Jamie and I both read every email we get, we just don't have time to respond to them all.
JAMIE HYNEMAN -- We get grief from fans all the time. As far as I'm concerned, 'myths' are just an excuse for us to play around with things, and we have no corner on truth or science or anything like that. I am aware that good science doesn't work on a shoot schedule, no matter what. What I do like is the fact that the show is thought-provoking -- and if someone disagrees about a result, then great! It means people are thinking.
Showing they at least have the humility to accept when they’re wrong.
That’s TWO sources, and the persons in question adding supporting statements.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The first two links you supplied do not open documents. I found them, however. None of these are reliable sources. You are not being held to a "higher standard"; everyone who edits Wikipedia are held to these standards. You need reliable published third-party sources. Student-based school newsletters and user websites do not qualify. You might try Google books.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as you didn’t meet that standard yourself, I’ll await other opinions, thank you. And it still doesn’t address the original issue.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I do meet with that standard and indeed know what is meant by reliable sources and have added them to many articles. Our policy is non-negotiable and trumps consensus. That said, I'm confident that other editors may point you in the right direction. You will need other sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Berean Hunter. The sources don't meet the standard required for reliable sources so they can't be used as references. Since you seem obsessed with somebody addressing your original issue, despite this having occurred, I'll answer your questions directly:
  • "¿how does this controversy apply? ¿How do we address this?" - If you can find reliable, published sources that directly support the claims that you're making, it can be added to a "criticisms" section. Until you actually find sources that don't fall into the "not reliable" category, the content can't be added. It's really as simple as that.
  • "¿Do you just go through my contribs list to harass me?" - This sort of comment is unjustified and is, at best, uncivil. Comment on content, not the contributor and always assume good faith. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright you tell me what you’re willing to accept this time. This “Clavius webmaster” claims to have been one of the experts they contacted for the episode he is commenting on (their expert trashed them), and the two men themselves admit they make mistakes. So tell me what’s “Good Enough” this time.
As to the other comments, I choose not to even deal with more red herrings.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The "Clavius webmaster" absolutely did not trash them. You need to read your purported sources more carefully. Jeh (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Explanation: whenever a ~ is present after the TLD in a URL ( it means that the page is a personal page maintained by one person using the site as a webhost and not the actual site! And we all know about self-published sources... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the correct url is, not Jay Windley, the webmaster, could be considered to be an expert in the field of Apollo Hoax debunking. He has been used as such in other TV programs. In the past he has been a frequent contributor to a Yahoo discussion group that I now run that specifically aims to debunk the hoax believers. When I saw the episode in question it all seemed too familiar to me and now I know Jay was involved I can see why. Despite this, I still think the source qualifies only as a self-published source. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the address directly from the URL box. That it may appear a different way to you, or is mirrored elsewhere, or something else I can not explain (or even understand). If you copy and pasted directly from this document, it SHOULD have taken you there, and only there. I’m sorry, but that’s not something I can answer.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem was that you formatted the urls as a wikilink, rather than an external source. ie "[[url|title]]" instead of "[url title]". External links should be bracketed using single brackets with a space between the url and title, not double brackets and a pipe. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. That sucks.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
While I’m dealing with that as a separate issue (bloody spelling of “iś” again)… I should point out I do NOT believe it requires a full section unto itself, but a sub-section of “4.1 Experiment approach” (4.1.1 Other Views or even Criticism per say). I’m not interested in bashing them, nor for that matter listing every little mistake they’ve ever made. Indeed, I would personally submit that unless one wishes to list every experiment, in detail, they have done to date and then volunteer to keep the list current indefinitely, no “specific” mistakes should be listed- Only to acknowledge that some experiments have been po-poed (forgive the slang) by others.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikiedia's neutrality policy requires that all sides of an argument be presented. If there is criticism of the methodology, there should be comment on the methodology from the opposing viewpoint. This sort of content can't just be slapped in the middle of other content. It usually requires a separate section. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Without going all out with a full list (again, bashing on them is unnecessary and wholly inappropriate), ¿what might you suggest in terms of wording? (That it must be a separate section appears unavoidable, and I’m withdrawing that suggestion.) I’m still working on sources, but it seems nobody who would do such an article really cares. A. J. REDDSON
Simple matter is while some experiments are flawed, possibly because of time/acquisition constraints there hasn't been much published criticism of it. As I understand it we need reliable verifiable sources explaining this criticism to mention it in the article and there just isn't a lot of that. (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So. Back to my original question in that case: They have been accused of rigging experiments, either intentionally or by ignorance, to arrive at desired results rather than actual results; Amongst the most pointed of these was “Pirate Ammo”, in which chains and silverware were fired out a non-naval cannon in what they called a “busted myth” when, in fact, had they been used in the manor intended (and preferably out of a naval gun) they would have worked.

The question is, ¿how does this controversy apply? ¿How do we address this? And to finish the question, “…in a fair and impersonal fashion? It’s not intended to bash on them, only to acknowledge that there have been acknowledged issues.” A. J. REDDSON

You've been told already. You need two (or more) reliable sources. The two hosts admitting they make mistakes is not the same thing as your original accusation: "rigging experiments, either intentionally or by ignorance, to arrive at desired results". You are going to need some very, very reliable sources before such an accusation can appear in a WP article. And as WP always tries to present a balanced view of any criticism, you should include material from reliable sources that provides an opposing view. By the way, I hope that your reading and interpretation of your source material will be more accurate than your interpretation of the Clavius web site. Jeh (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Popularity and Influence

While reading over this section I noticed that the mythbuster's appearances at the San Diego Comic-Con haven't been mentioned at all, despite that they've appeared there for a panel and discussion since at least 2008. Is there a reason why or if I can find the appropriate sources/references should I just add it?--Licourtrix (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

¿Buster as a Character?

I have to say, I don’t see Buster (old or new) as a “character” in this series; It (“He”) is a piece of equipment. Battlestar GALACTICA wouldn’t be listed in that page, either… (I mention it here rather than just rip it out as there may be objections. I’d like to hear those first.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk)

At first I couldn't see where Buster was described as a character at all... oh, the (dis) infobox. Well given that the article body agrees with you, saying...

Initially, they mainly used crash test dummies (most notably one they named Buster) for observing blunt trauma injury, and ballistic gelatin for testing penetrating trauma. [...]

...just ripping it out works for me. Jeh (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Producer Wikipedia Page

How come that the producer Peter Rees doesn't have his own Wikipedia page, but a link to IMBD? Just wondering. Finfun (talk)

Because he's not very notable perhaps? Silent1 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

SBS Australia shows Mythbusters

As an Australian, I was surprised to see that there is no mention of Mythbusters being shown weekly on the free-to-air channel SBS (Special Broadcasting Network. I don't know what the viewing figures might be, but SBS is a national broadcaster, and I would say 95% of Australians who watch the show would see it there. In fact, I did not know it was shown in any other form here. Odd, I mean for an Australian show (and I didn't know that either). Will incorporate a mention of SBS - it's one of the best channels in the world, and has been frequently cited as such. Myles325a (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed article mentions that BBC2 (in Britain) shows a half-hour version (the full length of episodes is double that). SBS is perhaps the ONLY free-to-air channel which shows this interesting show in its entirety. Perhaps the Australian connections through the show's production led to SBS getting rights to show it. Else, hardly anyone would see it. You only have to look at Pay TV's viewing figures to see just how paltry they are. Myles325a (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

cannonball location

when i heard of the cannonball incident i was of belief it was a diffrent bomb range and not the alemeda bomb range they normally test at. can anyone confirm the exact location this occured at? having trouble tracking down a reliable source of the CNN video (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are three reliable sources in the article that confirm that it was the Alameda County Sheriff's Bomb Range. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

run time difference

Aussielegend says nothing in the sources says that. Did you even try to watch the video on the link??? DreamFieldArts (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I did. The video doesn't mention Australia, which it needs to do. The only other person who spoke did not sound Australian and the audience did not look Australian. Nor was there anything identifying the video as having been made in Australia. Overall the video had a European feel to it. This is why I asked you to discuss it, rather than simply restore it, which I see you did anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Mythbusters only airs in US and Australia. Meaning if it wasn't US it's Australia. DreamFieldArts (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty obviously not true - Mythbusters airs around the world, including the United Kingdom and across Europe. What exactly is the issue being debated here? Bonusballs (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
So what do you want to say 44 minutes US and 52 minutes worldwide??? Because the run time is incorrect DreamFieldArts (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain the point you're making? Are you saying that the show is substantially longer in some countries, compared to the US episodes? (This seems surprising - 8 minutes per programme is a substantial difference.) What's the source for this? Is it extra footage or what? Bonusballs (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, apologies, I should have watched the video, that is indeed exactly the claim that is made. I'll check the runtime of a UK/European broadcast to see if that sheds any light on the mystery. Bonusballs (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
So do you want to add worldwide or do you want to wait till you find another source? DreamFieldArts (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You can't add "worldwide" without a source that says worldwide. I've seen a couple of the UK episodes episodes and, while the narrator was different, the episodes themselves were identical to the US episodes. That's not to say they're all like that though. MythBusters run times vary considerably anyway. The early seasons were around the 50 minute mark while later seasons are considerably shorter. The last season started typically around 43 minutes or less, but there were significant variations. One episode was closer to 42 minutes, as were most of the episodes in the second half of the season. However, there were a couple of episodes that ran to almost 48 minutes. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok then lets leave it as is, until we find a source. DreamFieldArts (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
43 minutes is the typical program length in the United States for an hour-long television program to allow time for the commercials. 22 minutes is the typical program length for a half-hour program for the same reason. Hmm, without the PSA's, wouldn't the European version of Mythbusters actually be shorter by a minute? Nutster (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
please refer to the link "" please watch the video and see what mr. Savage describes. happy spd DreamFieldArts (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just to demonstrate something I said earlier about run-times, the table below lists the measured run-times for the pilot, 2003 and 2011 season episodes in the US. As can be seen, run-times in 2003 were longer than in the last season. From October 2011 onwards run-times dropped even further, by almost a minute. In 2011, only 3 episodes came closer to 44 minutes in length than 43 and one of those was almost 48 minutes long.

MythBusters' episodes measured run-times
Season Episode Time (mm:ss) Season Episode Time (mm:ss) Season Episode Time (mm:ss)
Pilot episodes 1 45:00 2011 season 1 42:46 2011 season 12 43:15
2 44:55 2 42:53 13 42:06
3 44:49 3 42:53 14 42:05
2003 season 1 49:23 4 43:05 15 42:06
2 50:02 5 43:34 16 42:08
3 49:31 6 42:56 17 42:05
4 49:32 7 43:31 18 42:33
5 50:04 8 47:48 19 42:11
6 49:30 9 42:59 20 42:03
7 49:31 10 43:17 21 42:11
8 49:31 11 43:07 22 42:03

The average run-time in 2011 was 42:53.4, which rounds to 43 minutes, not 44. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I guess that it is 43 minutes, but we need to figure out the run-time for other areas around the world. DreamFieldArts (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No, we don't. The figures in the infobox are all based on the first run of the series; there's even a field called "|first_run=". MythBusters first aired in the US, so we include the US times, but not times from other markets. If there's need to mention run-times in foreign markets we do that in the prose, not the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Measured the runtime of two episodes as broadcast in the UK and Europe - the Green Hornet special and the Mission Impossible Mask episode, which I believe is seasons 8 and 9. In both cases the run time was 44 minutes and change. (44m15s for GH, 44m9s for MI). I think Adam might just be mistaken in the video - the longer 'director's first cut' that he gets to see just doesn't seem to be what is routinely transmitted elsewhere in the world, they get the same edits as seen in the US. Bonusballs (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Relavancy in Cannonball incident?

Is it really relevant to the Dec 6 errant cannonball incident that Adam and Kari went to Dublin High School 3 months later? I don't see the connection other than geography. If it is relevant, then there should be a sentence or at least a clause to tie them together. If, as I suspect, the appearance at the high school is not connected, move that event elsewhere or remove altogether. Nutster (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Buster under "starring"

I don't think a test dummy, however well beloved, should be in the cast list. - (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Buster has been credited in a starring role, so by MOS:TV requirements he needs to be listed. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbering of Episode SP12 – "Viewer Special Threequel" (2008 season)

Hi from Russian fans of the show.

Could you please explain why did you marked "Viewer Special Threequel" as a Special Episode SP12 and not as a regular Episode #114? It really doesn't make sense, cause first two "Viewer Choice" episodes are marked as a regular episodes (namely, Episode 84 "Viewer's Special" and Episode 99 "Viewer's Special 2"). Moreover, the fourth Viewer Special, aka "Wheel of Mythfortune", marked as a regular episode. So what is so special in this "Viewer Special Threequel"?

As far as I understand there is no reliable source on this matter. Even Discovery official website do not list all the episodes. Sometimes it miss a special episodes, sometimes it doesn't. Actually, it miss several regular episodes as well. E.g., "Operation Valkyrie" do not in the list, while special "Top 25 Moments" counted in.

So it look like one should use a common sense to separate special episodes and regular one. And common sense insist, that this "Viewer Special Threequel" should be treated as a regular episode. It is not a clip-cut of a previous scenes, it has no specific content or something, it is the very common episode of Mythbusters.

The reason why am I asking you is that Russian wiki treats this episode as a regular Episode 114. Consistently, "Demolition Derby" is Episode 115, etc. Right now we have discussion on this matter. So we will appreciate any links, hints and ideas you could provide us with.

CC: Talk:MythBusters (2008 season), Talk:List of MythBusters episodes Einwill (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Unchained Reaction really related?

I noticed today that Unchained Reaction was listed as a related show to our beloved Mythbusters. Is it really? Yes, I realize it has the same hosts (mostly), but does having the same hosts make it a related show? If so, then Punkin Chunkin should be listed as related as well. Actually, I don't think either show (Unchained nor Chunkin) should be listed as related to Mythbusters. In fact, during episodes of Unchained Reaction, it seems like the people on the show go out of their way to not say "Mythbusters" in any of the dialog nor show anything related to it in locations (like the video room supposedly in San Francisco). Is there a stronger case for relating the shows than just having the same hosts? Nutster (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The instructions for {{Infobox television}} say that the |related= field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." Unchained Reaction doesn't fall into that category so it shouldn't be listed. --AussieLegend () 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


Has the series been filmed in HDTV since 2003 (i.e. the very first episodes)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:53, 29 October 2012‎ (UTC)

During one of their special episodes, Adam Savage mentioned that they switched to HD digital cameras sometime (he mentioned when, I think) after the Knight Rider episode. Prior to that they were using regular broadcast-quality videotape cameras. Nutster (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a caveat. Discovery didn't start airing HD until '06 and the show started in '03. When you watch past episodes before the switch, the show is presented in a letterbox widescreen on a 4:3 frame. From what I can tell from shots within the show, the handheld cameras do not look like HD models and since it's nearly a decade ago now I highly doubt they are. But... why would they letterbox the show to begin with? I can't say for sure on the DVD releases but on streams about 90% of the episodes are letterboxed and only a few from pre-06 that I saw was cropped to widescreen.JdkWiki (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


May I ask which episode was the first time that Adam Savage says "I reject your reality and substitute my own."? Visokor (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

2004 season, first ep, "Explosive Decompression", during the rear axle pull-out segment. However the phrase apparently goes back to a 1974 Doctor Who episode, "The Deadly Assassin." Jeh (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Buster? A Prop? Really is credited as starring in the series in the infobox?

If the article mentions later down in the cast section that "Buster" stars in the show, thats fine, but the prop should not be credited in the infobox because the infobox should only contain the human cast members and not the props.--JOJ Hutton 18:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TV#Cast information says that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers and they have credited Buster in a starring role in several episodes so he has to be credited in a starring role. This is standard for stars of the show. We can't list him as starring in the cast section and not in the infobox. This would be inconsistent. Starring status has been discussed numerous times at MOS:TV and at WT:TV. --AussieLegend () 18:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
First off, the MOS:TV guideline is for sections within the body of the article. Props and inanimate objects should not be credited in the infobox. The infobiox should only contain the main elements and should not contain or include what is obviously a novalty gimmick used by the producers. Second, of all the shit I've seen being pushed on Wikipedia over the years this is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen somebody try and defend. Do you really think this is worth arguing over? Third, I haven't seen all the episides but I've seen several episodes and have never seen the prop credited as starting in the show, whether in the opening credits or at the end.JOJ Hutton 18:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The applicability of MOS:TV#Cast information has been discussed on many occasions. It applies to the infobox as well as the cast section. Regardless of whether or not it's a gimmick, we have to follow the MOS. Buster is not credited in all episodes but he has been credited in several, generally at the end. It's strange, but not uncommon. Top Gear does it with the Stig, who never speaks or presents but is nevertheless listed as a presenter. --AussieLegend () 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Tog Gear, but looking at the character's article, it is an actual actor portraying the character and not an inanimate object so its not the same thing. In reality the actors should be listed in the infobox and not the character they portray. The mention at List of MythBusters cast members seems appropriate although creepy to say the least since the dummy is just a prop, but the mention in the infobox is not appropriate since the prop is not portrayed by a real actor.--JOJ Hutton 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with JOJ - just because Mythbusters lists Buster as a cast member as (IMO) a joke, doesn't mean he's actually one. Also The Stig from Top Gear is an actual person where Buster is not so your anology is not proper AussieLegend... Ckruschke (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
The analogy is entirely appropriate, as it was simply a comparison of crediting a main cast member at the end of the episode instead of the beginning. It had nothing to do with whether or not the Stig and Buster are real people. Regardless, MOS:TV#Cast information still applies. If the producers credit a non-speaking, non presenter as a cast member then we list it in accordance with the MOS. Similarly, if the producers want to credit a non-human as a main cast member, MOS:TV#Cast information still applies. --AussieLegend () 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I missed your point of the analogy - apologies. Your point is valid, even if I continue to disagree with it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Who cares where the prop has its name. The real point is that the prop isn't alive and has no live actor or animal attached to it and therefore is not, by definition and for the purposes of the infobox, an cast member. And where is the reliable secondary source for this anyway? Still haven't seen any proof of the claim that the dummy is considered by the producers as a main cast member. JOJ Hutton 19:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, you care where the prop has its name, since you're arguing that we should ignore the MOS. The producers have determined that Buster is a cast member by crediting Buster as a main cast member. They've even produced a series of special episodes titled "Buster's Cut" and the first episode of the 2005 season was a Buster Special. Buster is considered a significant part of the series and the cast have stated on numerous occasions that they consider Buster to be a cast member. The point is not "that the prop isn't alive" at all. This isn't even a consideration in MOS:TV#Cast information. If you don't like it, you need to get the MOS changed to specifically exclude non-humans. --AussieLegend () 02:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
For one your claim that the producers consider the dummy to be part a main cast is completely without a source. Including the name of the prop in the closing credits is not a strong enough reason to think that they do. So without a source it violates WP:V, a Wikipedia core content policy. Continuing to say so without a source constitutes original research which is another Wikipedia core content policy. Second, I'm pretty sure that any "main cast" discussion in the past never intended to include inanimate objects and so removing the name would not be in violation of any Wikipedia guideline. Why you continue to fight for this is beyond me. Third, you have gained little support for your opinion. JOJ Hutton 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
TV episodes are primary sources so they're an acceptable source for cast information. That there is no source in the article is not at all unusual, TV articles do not normally include sources for series that have aired as the cast information is sourced from the episodes. "I'm pretty sure" is not a credible argument for ignoring the MOS. I'm not the one who has to gain support here, since I'm defending compliance with the MOS. You're the one arguing that we should ignore it, so you need to gain support to do that. --AussieLegend () 04:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I really don't understand what the problem with listing Buster in the infobox is; it makes sense that, if he's listed in the credits (it's not our place to determine if it's a joke or not), he gets mentioned in the article. EVula // talk // // 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For starters it's not a he or even a she it's a prop. Second there is no source that lists the prop as actually "starring" in the show we only have Aussie's word that the name of the prop is mentioned in the end credits, but that doesn't show proof that the producers consider the prop a "star" of the show. Not enough at least to include in the infobox, which is really all I'm advocating for anyway. JOJ Hutton 01:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Buster is always referred to with a masculine pronoun. I suggest you get over that, because that's a really trivial detail for you to nitpick.
As for the sourcing issue, is there a proper method for sourcing the credits of a show? I'm genuinely unfamiliar with that matter. (also: what season/episode was Buster in the credits? I just fired up Netlix and watched the end of a random episode, but I don't think they used Buster at all, and I don't feel like rewatching everything right now)
Now, that said, Buster is very clearly listed on the MythBusters Exhibition page, which definitely counts as an official mention. Definitely not the smoking gun, but it definitely counts as some anecdotal evidence. EVula // talk // // 04:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Buster is referred to as a he because it's a male form and has been referred to as such in the episodes. It's not just my word, it's verifiable by checking the end credits, where he's credited as starring, which is a pretty good indication that the producers consider Buster to be a star. As I said, he's not credited in every episode so it's necessary to go through the credits of several episodes to find the credits (there are 236 so far). TV episodes are primary sources so they're an acceptable source for cast information. --AussieLegend () 04:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that if a reliable source credits this inanimate humanoid form with 'cast' status, then it's not anyone else's place to disagree with that. The entry on the Discovery website is reliable and verifiable - end of discussion, surely. Bonusballs (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion at MOS:TV. JOJ Hutton 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Any part in particular? I don't see anything that prohibits an accurate reflection of the producers' own cast credits. Bonusballs (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Go to the talk page. It's the large discussion at the bottom. You will see that it is the overwhelmingly majority consensus, minus Aussie, that even if the producers consider a prop to to a cast member, it's still not appropriate to list the prop in the infobox. JOJ Hutton 14:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is here. --AussieLegend () 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge discussion here, and the only consensus is a general lack of consensus. Everyone's saying the same thing - on one hand, Buster is a prop, not a human being or even a living creature (if it were just humans, the dog that plays Lassie wouldn't be credited), so theoretically has no place in the credits. However, Buster does feature prominently, is antropomorphised, is an integral and regoniseable part of the show, and is indeed featured in the credits of the show itself. So, why don't we compromise and add him to the "Starring" infobox, but make it clear it's, technically speaking, a gag? Maybe just "Buster (prop)" would be enough, or "Buster (gag credit)", or just a small line saying "Props given star bill" and listing Buster underneath. Incidently, we have within MythBusters itself a valid comparison - "Earl", the Cadillac, also earned a name and a certain status, but is nowhere near as central and antropomorphised as Buster. So it's not as though one's arguing for the inclusion of props in the infobox, just Buster himself. Itself. Whatever. -- PeterPears 14:59 8 March 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some valid points there but I recommend that you chime in at the MOS discussion. --AussieLegend () 11:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

B-Team Retired

So as of the end of the 2014 season, Tory, Kari and Grant are no longer involved in Mythbusters. I'm not sure I could write this development justice, but the source I have is the final episode of the 2014 season (which I'm not sure how to source either). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


I did not see a section that mentions any form of awards as most T.V. shows here seem to do, I bring this up because I saw that Mythbusters had been nominated for an Emmy, I came here to see how many they had won or been nominated for, Wouldn't a section for awards be relevant to add? 2602:306:BC7B:2C0:DC34:C198:4501:BAA1 (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NYTimes opinion piece

This NYTimes opinion piece might be of interest for the impact/influence discussion: What We Owe the MythBusters By JAMES B. MEIGSNOV. 5, 2015 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MythBusters. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 10:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MythBusters. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 20:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MythBusters. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

No An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 13:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MythBusters. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Formula in opening sequence

A = 2 pi r^2

What's A supposed to be? _Twice_ the area of a disk with radius r??? (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Plans yanked?

What's the status of the planned game show / spin-off MythBusters series with new hosts? All news I can find regarding it was released during one single day. Did the plans fall through? (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mythbusters, the search was on in 2017. The winners were Jonathan Lung and Brian Louden. [1] --Shadowfax500 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Burton, Bonnie. "New 'MythBusters' hosts crowned". cnet. Retrieved 9 April 2017.