Talk:MythBusters (2007 season)

message: Why is it shown as confirmed here, when on the show they have it as busted? The original myth was that a normal human voice could extinguish a flame, which was shown to not happen. ---71.244.36.223 01:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Voice Extinguisher

message: What happend to episode 72? Why has the "Speed Cameras"-episode got the episode number 73? Should'nt it be 72 instead? Dreamingtree 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone fixed it by removing Pirate Special from Season 5 and adjusting the numbering, but now it's back and inconsistent again... 203.132.67.187 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Numbering

message: I cant believe that they are now trying to put something like the Hingenburg disaster on trial, I mean this isn't like the rest of there little myths, this has had several serious investigations done on it. --Aaron J Nicoli 01:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindenburg discussion

message: Does anyone know why Mythbusters had such a large gap between its last episode, and those forthcoming? 69.158.158.3 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiatus?

message: My apologies for posting this twice, but since the Dog Myths episode covers one topic (like the Pirate Myths episode before it) shouldn't it be considered a special.
* Surely no, because it wasn't presented as one; usually the special episodes start with the narrator saying, "On this special episode of Mythbusters," or they have a blueprint with "X Speical" - neither of which were in that episode. R'win 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Myths Episode 

message: When the Adam and Jamie recapped the bloodhound myth, they called the urban run Plausible.Metropod 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definitely agree (in case we need to reach a consensus). Should we also mention that some dogs could be trained to better handle urban enviroments? Ytoabn 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood hound myth

message: I don't remember watching the Mintos and Diet Coke myth (if you can call it a myth) ever revisited especially in the Wednesday, March 21, 2007 episode.  That is why I deleted it from the article page if anyone is wondering. gibsonj338 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mintos and Diet Coke

message: Why are these episodes called Season 5? There appears to be only a few week's gap (the usual Christmas break) from the Season 4 episodes. Shouldn't these just continue on as part of Season 4? 23skidoo 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 5?

message: Just looked on the official site schedual and it says that episode 80 airs May 31 however there is no mention of episode 79 anywhere.  So I added the info for 80 and left 79 blank. Redekopmark 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 79 and 80 

message: According to the Discovery Channel homepage, episode 71 was supposed to be the pirate special. The information from that episode seems to be absent. I'd add it, but I never saw that episode. --76.214.195.6 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirate Special, Episode 71 

message: According to the video on the Discovery Channel Website, the Cyclists Drafting a Big Rig myth, the results were not confirmed, it was plausible.  I changed it.  If you don't believe me, go to , click on Video Search and in the Search text box type in "big rig."  Click on the first video which should be  "Mythbusters: Big Rig" and at the end of the video it will say, Plausible and not Confirmed.
:I was wondering, is the aforementioned episode the first episode in which every single myth shown on air is confirmed? --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this is somewhat unrelated, but didn't they realize people have ridden bicycles in excess of 150mph using the same concept? If a guy can pedal 150mph drafting behind a car, the concept is confirmed. LostCause 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very concept of the show is based on putting myths to the test.  There are multiple cases where they cite other studies, but can't come to the same conclusions in their own tests (like the beer-bottle bashing tests—the study they cited stated an empty bottle would inflict more damage, but their own tests showed the full one would).  While they probably could have said Confirmed in this case based off the other studies, going by their own tests alone, Plausible is also a valid conclusion.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs)  14:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Rig Myths, Episode 79 

message: The section …cannot take a picture of a car if it is going fast enough. is definitely untrue. The fastest land-based cars are able to drive faster than Mach 1 and while I do not know about shutter speed of those cameras, one can safely assume that they will not be able to take a useful picture.
It is worth noting that most high-speed cars have a software-imposed speed limit of 250 km/h as that is the maximum speed one can go in Germany unless one specifically removes the lock which needs to be documented and means that the insurance rate increases significantly. As the concept of 'a car drives fast, we need picture proof' applies everywhere, I would assume that the limit the majority of manufacturers chooses (as stated above, they must have a limit) is a little bit above 250 M/h which the Top Gear test seems to support.
No idea if and how that should be incorporated into the article, though.
RichiH 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply, but a later episode did a retest with a dragster, and it was able to go fast enough that the speed camera didn't even register its presence.  And this was with the camera's designer actively trying to catch it.  As of the episode here, Busted, but the retest was Confirmed, if impractical.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs)  14:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 72 — "Speed Cameras" 

message: Minor issue here. Changed female dog to bitch (notice links ;-) ) a few days ago and someone changed it back.
I think bitch is the proper term to use since it is both the primary definition of the word and was the word used to describe that portion of the myth in the show. Perhapts make a link to wiktionary in the page? TheSittingDuck 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Female dog" is a perfectly accurate and adequate phrase that doesn't have the emotional baggage that "bitch" does.  I think it should stay as it is. Spejic 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dog" can also be derogatory in some usages. I propose rather than using the entirely appropriate (and inoffensive in this context) "bitch" we use "female of a canine species". Alternately, we can presume that wikipedia is an educational resource and that appropriate words should be used where they apply, and be as succinct as possible, rather than using phrases where a single word exists. I do not approve of avoiding valid terms in this manner. 77.98.223.49 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat the Guard Dog: female dog -> bitch? 

message: The Ninja Special is currently listed as episode 0508. Shouldn't this be counted as a special instead of a regular episode, and changed from 0508 to special 12? YHVHYHVH 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think that the Pirate Special should also be removed from this page so that there is only one entry on the article specifically for these special episodes. hitman012 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 5 - Ninja Special 

message: "The artificial hand managed to catch the arrow easily in superhuman speed, but the human strength setting was just not powerful enough to grip the arrow in time."
The Mythbusters forgot one important detail:  Why not just set the hand further away from the arrow-firing rig, and anticipate the longer trajectory so it can grip the arrow at human strength? --  Denelson83  09:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they did account for this.  The idea is that if they start closing their hand to fast, the arrow will get blocked by the hand.  In this sense, it doesn't matter how far they are away from where the arrow is being launched, only when it starts being closed relative to the position of the arrow.  --GreekHouse  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekHouse (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
Although they have listed it as "Busted," maybe they should re-list it as "Plausible," in light of this video showing Terry Bryan on Ripley's Believe It Or Not catching 2 arrows (one with his eyes open, one while blindfolded).  Ag1999 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There are very few cases where the MythBusters have overturned test results on contradicting external data alone, and none (as far as I know) since very early in the show's run.  In any case, the MythBusters did a retest using an actual arrow-catching ninja, and still considered it Busted because the myth specified it being done under battle conditions (and yes, this was the definition from the start); the ninja required specific conditions to successfully catch arrows.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs)  14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catching an arrow 

message: its not "partly busted". because the myth is that u cannot fold a piece of paper more then 7 times(any size & any thickness, as long as its folded in perpendicular halves)
So it is busted XNos 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paper fold myth 

message: Why aren't there any source references to the season subdivisions? Where do you get the information on when each season begins? There seem to bee different information on different websites. And the official MythBusters site doesn't list seasons at all. Wouldn't it be better to just arrange the episodes under year and skip the season subdivisions if there are no secure sources?! / Dreamingtree (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season subdivision, reference 

message: Episode 81 lists "Diet Coke & Mentos 3". The only previous episode mentioning mentos on wikipedia is Season 4's episode 57. Where is Mentos 2? TheHYPO (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentos 3? 

message: I remember seeing the "Hot Water Heater Explosion" myth air sometime in 2008. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Heater Explosion 

message: The "Hindenburg Mystery" episode raises a new mystery - what are the two "secret ingredients" they used to make thermite so user friendly?  Note that Wikipedia lacks the television executive's instinct for censorship and already gives a wide range of simpler ways to ignite thermite; we're limiting the question here to what would have an appearance consistent with what is seen in the episode.  A weak consensus online appears to be that they used glycerin and potassium permanganate to create the initial heat to start the thermite reaction.  Unfortunately, three forums doesn't add up to one reliable source!  Besides, there's some confusion in my mind whether there is any relationship whatsoever between the secret recipe they use to make the thermite self-ignite in a frying pan in the first scene, and the later "secret recipe" that turned squares of fabric into exceptionally good sparklers.  Are there any sites commenting on Mythbusters that rise to the level of a reliable source to use in the episode description?  (Note that the current version says that it uses only ingredients in the Hindenburg dope, i.e. the aluminum and iron oxide, which I think is wrong in all cases?) Wnt (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. Most that could would probably rather not give out the information(for safety reasons).--Marhawkman (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Hindenburg thermite 

message: The passenger that landed the King Air after the pilot dies was a licensed pilot.  While it is certainly more difficult to fly a twin than a single, a less qualified pilot taking over after PIC incapacitation does not fit the tested myth "An untrained civilian can be instructed over the radio to land a plane after the pilot dies."Es330td (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the myth was derived from the event, not testing whether it was possible.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it's accurate to what was claimed in the episode (which, if it is, the episode is thus inaccurate), but the article does state "An untrained civilian can be instructed how to successfully land a plane over the radio. This is based on the movie Airplane." In Airplane! the character in question, Ted Striker (Robert Hayes), was neither an untrained pilot nor entirely civilian. He was, in fact, a former Air Force (or Army Air Force -- the movie is unclear and doesn't pay much attention to historical accuracy) pilot who was afraid to fly after experiencing trauma in "the war" (which war isn't specified, though scenes could lend themselves to Vietnam, Korea or even the Pacific front of WWII)72.247.151.10 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply--clips from the movie Airplane! were used to illustrate that myth in the episode.  While the myth may not have been based solely on that film, the film was used to show a "successful" version of the myth, even if some of the details in the film didn't quite match the myth.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs)  18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plane Hour 

message: The section about the myth of the rising fastball should probably be reworded. As the Wikipedia article on 'fastball' correctly describes, a spinning ball in horizontal flight might be capable of rising, but such motion can not be achieved by baseball pitchers. My objection is that such motion would not 'defy the laws of physics', as the article states, and which I will change, unless that was the wording used in the episode, and other editors think that it should remain for that reason. Michael9422 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the episode itself, a scientist explained that, in the conditions of a major league ballgame, the spin of a fastball could not produce more than half the baseball's weight in lift, making an actual rising fastball an impossibility.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs)  18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising Fastball 

message: It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.
To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.
To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.
Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour contrast problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MythBusters (2007 season). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026194317/http://dillonaero.com/dillon_on_discovery.html to http://dillonaero.com/dillon_on_discovery.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MythBusters (2003 season) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress