Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Villano" data-source="post: 3953143" data-attributes="member: 505">Anyone else feeling dissatisfied with Mythbusters lately?  I loved the show when it began.  I didn't even mind the inclusion of the Build Team.  However, it doesn't really feel like the same show to me anymore.First, when the Build Team was introduced, they helped Adam and Jamie with their myths.  Later, they started doing their own myths and then checking in with Adam with the results.  Now, I don't think they appear together during an episode.  I feel like I'm watching two shows:  "One Or Two Big Myths With Adam & Jamie" and "The Build Team Do A Half Dozen Quickie Myths".The other problem I have is that it seems like the researchers aren't really trying.  For example, they did the story of a sniper (in the Korean or Vietnam War) who killed an enemy sniper by putting a bullet down his scope.  They declared the myth "busted" (even though the sniper recieved a medal for the act).  Later, they revisited the myth when viewers complained that they used the wrong gun, ammo, and scope.  In other words, they got everything wrong.  They tried again and changed their verdict.Recently, they did a segment on beating the polygraph.  Now, I had problems with the way they handled the myth (i.e., the Build Team each came up with one idea and they tried them), but I wasn't expecting what others discovered.The test was administered by a Dr. Michael Martin, PHD.  It seems the good doctor got his degree from Suffield University.  Why is that a problem?  This is from Wikipedia: Basically, you tell them your "life experience" and send them money and they mail you a degree.  You want to be a polygraph expert?  Tell them you have a lot of experience at it, and, bang, you too can have a PHD!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />   Oh, and nothing screams credibility like "operating illegally in Connecticut".  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> What makes it worse is that, checking around, I found a website by a polygraph critic, George Maschke, who commented on the episode.  He says that he was contacted by Mythbusters producers after he appeared on a British tv program.  He was asked for advice on getting a polygraph operator and he warned them about a couple of people with fake PHDs, including this "Doctor" Michael Martin.  So, they were warned about him, but used him anyway?  As someone else said about this topic, how can you trust the honesty of the results if you can't trust the honesty of the operator?It seems like no one there cares anymore.  Come up with the quickest solution, bang it out, and move on to the next myth.  :\ I really hope they turn this around.  Like I said, I liked the show and I wish it could get back to what it was.</blockquote>

Verification