first of all, I'll never hook myself to any lie detector system for any reason. As the exaniner can find you guilty if he wants to. How you gonna challenge HIS findings?

I have a little theory I'd like to see tested. The questions must all be related to the crime being investigated with a few check questions thrown in for being a standard. Questions that begin with "have you ever" are not allowed. As these could be totally misleading.

After developing the questions, first, have the test subject read the questions. Then ask the questions twice. In the first round, the subject replies with "yes" to every question, and in the second round, answers "no" to every question.

This way, a better comparison to the truth can be observed and there is no doubt whom is being truthfull.

In one of his movies, Segal was hooked up to a lie detector and asked if he ever climbed mt. everest. He replied yes. Much to the surprise of the examiner which showed a truthful response.

Of course, then we have the best lie detector of them all which requires no machine at all. Line up 20 people who you suspect is guitly. Those that are not will be honest all the way. The guilty one will protest.

"I can not tell a lie. HE did it!"

On Winans Steam gun.......
I think I'll build one just for kicks.

Maybe the guys should build a bigger one and see if they can launch cannon size balls with one. Ok how about tennis balls?

OK guys, I created an account and posted to make just one point; and this applies to nearly every Mythbuster’s show ever aired.

It seems that the entire premise of the show (especially recently) has been if one of the cast cannot reproduce a feat, then it cannot be done. So basically, if Grant Imahara cannot run the mile in 3:43.13, obviously the world record is only plausible (despite the fact that there are records proving otherwise). This has been bothering me for some time, but the lie detector test finally put me over.

While your ‘lackeys’ are definitely proficient and intelligent people, they have never been trained in performing many specialized tasks. Despite this lack of training and experience, they continue to be used as viable subjects to test hypotheses that demand legitimate controls. Your lie detector episode proved absolutely nothing and was a waste of my time and your money. I recommend finding subjects who are, at the very least, somewhat experienced in performing the tasks that you set forth. For example; an ex government agent who has been trained to fool the lie detector. I know this is a tall order, but it seems that you have the money to do something other than make a mockery of your cast.

-Dr.G

I've always viewed the mythbusters as a "if they can do it (almost) anyone can" over a "if they can't do it, it's unlikely/impossible".

And I think that's their point they try to do. If an untrained individual(s) can do something (such as beat a lie detector) than it's definitely confirmed. If they know others have done it, it may be listed as confirmed or plausible depending on the danger level of the myth (i.e. if someone testing the myth could kill themselves or another, it'd probably be confirmed, if no one gets hurt - plausible).

That's totally absurd. How would danger level affect confirmation or plausibility of a myth in any way? Why would you ever assume that they would structure their myth confirmation/plausibility/busting on danger level? It defeats the whole purpose of the rating.

As far as I can tell, the premise of the show is pretty straight forward; take an implausible concept that is relatively well known and attempt to prove/disprove said concept in a scientific, controlled environment (operative term: ATTEMPT). Why should it matter whether the average person can replicate one of these concepts?

DocWhiplash brings up an excellent point in that quite a few episodes have become more of a "if we can't do it no one can” scenario and I don't see how you can prove otherwise.
Take for example the pirate stabbing the sail and riding it to the ship's deck from the pirate myth. The myth was busted because neither Tory nor their dummy were able to replicate the myth. The show is not "Can the average American do this" but rather "can a group of 'trained professionals' use every method and tool available to them to replicate myth as scientifically as possible".

So if I understand you correctly, just because Grant, an average American, cannot run a mile in 3:43 the myth should be plausible rather than confirmed? Makes good sense...
You're nothing more than a blind apologists for the mythbusters; get off your knees...

I just think that if anything it would effect it for this hypothetical reason (just can't think of anything offhand that'd apply, so just assume things with it):

Myth: "If you shoot someone in the eye with a penny you'll kill them"
Tested as "busted but might be possible given right circumstances"
Listed as "busted or plausible"
BUT if there's confirmed cases, they'd probably give it a "plausible/confirmed" just so people don't try to bust it on their own (or whatnot).

Myth: "you can beat a lie detector"
Tested as "busted"
Actual cases in the past consider it "confirmed"
They say "plausible" since there's no chance in death or injury by someone trying to prove it -- and they themselves couldn't get a "confirmed" response.

jlrodgers makes a good point. they most likely were thinking about how they really didn't want to wash the cars. I think that they should have told them about that AFTER they did the test.

About the Confederate Steam Gun.... I think Jamie should have used a different design to feed the hopper. He used the planetary gear design. I think what he should of looked at was... in World War I they came up with a concept of how to shoot their main gun behind the propellor. I think he could have used the same design to concentrate fire through the opening. (How this works is like a clutch, and when the clutch is laid off it should activate the trigger..) That's just me though.

Correction it was Adam who tried to use the Planetary Gear Design

If you do a polygraph re-visit, I've always wondered...

What if after you are read the question, you then thought about a question that had a different answer quickly and answered that.
i.e.
Did you steal the money?
Think in your head "Are you a senior citizen?" (or whatever your answer might be "no" to)
Answer, "No".

If a person went in with 3 or 4 questions they had rehearsed answering in their head, could you quickly think them during a polygraph test and pass.

I've always wondered if that would work.

Hello, I have some comments about this episode and the show in general lately.
I just want to know if anyone else has noticed a signifigant change in the last episodes/seasons?

The show seems to drift more and more into making Jamie and Adam into actors rather than true "Mythbusters".
We never get to see much of the research and technical builds anymore, to me the show seems like it is being dumbed down alot lately.
I found it hard to watch the pirates special with the silly outfits and the voices, I was hoping all that was just a one time special-thing.
But now again, Adam with the voices and outfits? It's almost every episode lately.
Adam has always been messing around on the set, which I find amusing but this lately is obviously being directed.
Jamie is also a terrible actor, and he really does not care, which i think is the right thing to do, you can always tell when he is speaking lines instead of his own words, I think that is because he has enough self respect to not pretend he is not just acting out lines.
I mean the part where they introduce the myths and the conclucions, come on!

I miss the good old episodes where we actually saw the mythbusters work stuff out, make decisions, mistakes, calculations, make their own asumptions and just speak without a script.

I hope I'm not the ony one bothered by this.
Steam cannons and lie detectors are awesome, Imagine how cool this episode would have been, had it been made in good old mythbusters fasion.

You and I are absolutely on the same page. See my post here, with sections of it reproduced below. It did not get any responses, so maybe you and I are the only ones who either see it, or care.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9801967776/m/4981980939

"In my humble opinion, the show is becoming too gimmicky and scripted. I personally would like to see less of the Mythbusters acting out silly skits (supposedly for our entertainment), and more rigor around the science and special effects that have been the heart of the show from the beginning.

In this last show (Pirates 2), way too much time was spent in the silly scripted stuff than on getting into the details of the myths in classic Mythbuster fashion. An entire additional myth could have been included in this show if the scripted stuff could have been kept to a manageable level.

This means - less costumes, less scripted lines, fewer vignettes....in a word, less FILLER. More substance. Let these folks react and interact and interact honestly and spontaneously. Don't give them lines: I don't watch this show for acting. This doesn't mean it has to be dry...just more honest and authentic - like the first few seasons.

Something I also miss compared to the show's early years was when the entire team used to work together on myths more often. I enjoyed seeing Kari and Tory working with Adam and Jamie - the synergy, energy, enthusiasm, and interaction was terrific. This current format of Adam and Jamie having their own segments, separate from the Kari, Tory, and Grant isn't working for me, and has reduced my enjoyment of the show in recent times.

I have nothing but respect for the entire Mythbuster and production team, and have enjoyed countless hours of entertainment over the years. Please consider this feedback as completely constructive.

For me personally - and others like me - if the scripted portions of the shows, themes, vignettes, and "acting" continue to crowd out the genuine interaction between these talented folks, reducing the compelling science elements, I worry about the longevity of the show, and my personal ability to sustain interest over the long term. After all, that's what differentiates this show from everything else out there."

You are not the only one. See this post.

Candid Feedback On The Show From A Viewer Who Cares....

Confederate steam gun... There is no doubt that the steam gun could be lethal. The problem was rotational speed/barrel length. If the barrel was 12" and they spun it at 2000 rpm the maximum fps the ammo could exit the gun around 200. If the barrel length stayed the same the gun would need to spin at 8000rpm to achieve approx 830fps(approx. speed of 9mm pistol round). There is also one more matter, the fact is that every time a steel ball is dropped the inertial force of the gun will be slowed as the ball reaches the end of the barrel. This must be compensated by either adding a flywheel or the addition of rpm. Also at these speeds the gun would fire 8000 round per minute .Which means to make it fire an economically feasible 400 round per min. The ball drop mechanism would need to be a 20:1 gear ratio. Fulfill these specs and this is a deadly weapon.

i missed the beginning of the show, but to me, the projectiles they were firing, looked a lot larger than your standard civil war era ammo...seems to me that a smaller calibre round (.52) would have better penetration when fired at the same velocity , than something the size of a ping pong ball.

RE polygraph

First of all, in the US polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence; a person cannot go to jail based solely of the results of a polygraph test.

Second of all, saying that there are cases of people beating polygraphs so polygraphs are useless is like saying there are cases of people surviving being shot so guns are useless. No one has ever claimed that polygraphs are 100% accurate. They are accurate enough to be a useful tool.

Mostly though this is just a case of people not understanding something easily so it is dismissed. Polygraph examiners require a lot of training and experience to become effective. They ask tons of questions of different types in order to collect a set of data that they then have to interpret. Very often they fail and the test in inconclusive. This doesn't make them useless.

One other point. The consequences presented by Adam (washing the cars and the bus ride) provide the most important element of the test. In real life situations, which the mythbusters usually strive to recreate, polygraphs are used in cases where there are real consequences for the examined.

quote:

Hated that the producers and Adam created such vile consequences in the lie detecting bits. Going for ratings by treating staff poorly?? I thought that was very badly done gentlemen and ladies. MythBusters is not supposed to be about drama and treating each other badly. Riding 3000 miles on a bus seems to be an extreme job requirement. Shades of the pointy haired boss from the Dilbert cartoons! Is Adam getting power hungry???

No Adam was still angry at them for electrocuting him with an electric fence.

Guys, have you ever thought there's a reason that polygraph evidence is not admissible in court?

Some further reading for you all:

* The Closing of the Coffin on Forensic Polygraph Evidence

* The Limits of the Polygraph

* Can They Fool the Polygraph? - accuracy of polygraph tests

And for the person who said that the "science has come a long way" since the 80's, all of these reports are from post-2000, and most of the studies cited in them are from even later than that.

I'm very disappointed with the team on this, as they are propagating myths (ha!) and misinformation, as well as using an ill-credentialed person to provide us with scientifically undocumented accuracy figures.

This needs a revisit ASAP.

Reading through this thread only confirms something I've thought all along about Mythbusters...simply put, that with the most controversial myths, there are always going to be those who are he**bent on NOT being convinced of anything whatsoever.

Like every time they've done a conspiracy theory myth, I've thought to myself, "Of course, this is probably going to do nothing to convince the really hard-core conspiracy theorists. They'll just spout off that the gang was paid to make the myth look busted."

It's the same thing here...some people are just absolutely set in believing that lie detectors are bunk...so they're never going to be satisfied with ANYBODY'S experimental results, wherever they got their diploma from, or whether they're trained liars or not.