Mythbusters 12/22: "Operation Valkyrie"

[Christopher]

Valkyrie Boom: This is quite interesting -- they're tackling a major event from history, examining the conventional wisdom about why Hitler survived Claus von Stauffenberg's assassination attempt. It's intriguing to see them using real historical records to recreate a significant event -- even getting hold of actual Nazi reports and photos. It's a refreshing change from testing YouTube hoaxes and figures of speech.

And at the same time, they're investigating some interesting physics about how explosions do damage. I have learned so much about the physics of explosions from watching this show. It's impressive how much of a difference containment makes in the intensity of the pressure waves, though not really surprising.

Too bad about that shipping container failing. If they'd happened to choose the other container to bury, they probably wouldn't have had that problem. Not so unlike the failure of the actual assassination attempt -- had one thing been chosen differently, the outcome would've been very different.

But of course, these guys can just reset and try again. Interesting results. It's really surprising that anyone could survive being inside a room that gets blown open like that.

But I'm not entirely convinced about the accuracy of the bunker test. The container's doors seemed to blow open quite easily, relieving the pressure. Would the actual bunker have had that kind of vulnerable point? I'm not sure they succeeded in achieving the level of containment they were going for. Maybe we'll get a revisit where they precisely recreate the actual bunker.

The thing I'm wondering about is, why didn't the conspirators use a bigger bomb? Their plan pretty much seemed to hinge on the briefcase being right next to Hitler when it went off. Were they hoping to minimize other casualties, or was it that the explosives they had available were only so powerful and they couldn't fit a bigger load into a briefcase?


Slapping sense into someone: This is one where I initially questioned their definition of the myth. I've always interpreted what they're describing as simply a way of getting someone's attention when they were too preoccupied to listen. But then it turned out through Grant's test that it actually does seem to help improve impaired mental function by getting the adrenaline going.

Still, I'm used to seeing this as a way of getting someone hysterical to calm down. Inducing a fight-or-flight reaction seems to be the opposite of that. But it definitely did seem to improve clarity of thought and judgment.

Why is it always the Junior Mythbusters who get the tests that involve unpleasant physical ordeals? Maybe because they're junior. Although, no, I guess Adam and Jamie have put their bodies on the line plenty of times, like when they spent hours in a meat locker to test the St. Bernard myth.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Utterly forgot about Mythbusters, I'll have to see about catching the repeat.

 

[Saga]

i forgot as well. have to catch the rerun at midnight.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Slapping sense into someone: This is one where I initially questioned their definition of the myth. I've always interpreted what they're describing as simply a way of getting someone's attention when they were too preoccupied to listen. But then it turned out through Grant's test that it actually does seem to help improve impaired mental function by getting the adrenaline going.

Still, I'm used to seeing this as a way of getting someone hysterical to calm down. Inducing a fight-or-flight reaction seems to be the opposite of that. But it definitely did seem to improve clarity of thought and judgment.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc&nofeather=True[/yt]

 

[Marc]

They're a bit behind the times - another program (for the life of me I can't remember what it was called but think it was also on Discovery) looked at the assassination attempt going so far as to recreate the dimensions of the bunker, it's layout and the table.

Their conclusion was that hitler's injuries were consistent with the bomb going of where it was reported to have been moved to & where he was standing at the time. It also showed that had the bomb been in it's original location der fuhrer would have been die Toten.

 

[Christopher]

^But the Mythbusters were specifically testing the belief that the nature of the room was the critical factor.

Besides, the essence of science is repeatability. Experiments are supposed to be conducted more than once by different, independent investigators, so as to cancel out sources of experimental error or bias. So just because one group has tested it, that doesn't mean nobody else should -- just the opposite.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Haven't watched it all yet but that slapping rig is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

 

[Brikar99]

This one sounds cool. Sorry I missed it.

 

[Roger Wilco]

The Valkyrie test was strange; I think it's an interesting idea to test this, but they completely overlooked what from what I've read is the reason most commonly quoted for the failure of the assassination attempt - the thick solid steel legs of the conference table and that the bomb was placed on the wrong side of the table legs.

 

[JRS]

The Valkyrie test was strange; I think it's an interesting idea to test this, but they completely overlooked what from what I've read is the reason most commonly quoted for the failure of the assassination attempt - the thick solid steel legs of the conference table and that the bomb was placed on the wrong side of the table legs.

The table was actually made from wood but was solid enough to reflect some of the force of the blast
The meeting was held in a large hut, this fact helped Hitler to survive also, because some force of the explosion was directed outwards from the windows of the the building.
If the meeting would have been held inside a bunker(as it was intended orginally) all of the people in the room would have most likely have died, because the blast would have been much more contained.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Valkyrie's been done before in, I think, Unsolved History. Still, makes a nice change from just plugging other shows of late, so I'm looking forward to the UK airing.

 

[Forbin]

^Yah, I spent the episode wondering aloud why they completely failed to mention the 2" thick oak table that partially absorbed/deflected the blast.

Testing the sealed/open room variables was a perfectly valid experiment, of course. But there were other factors and they should have mentioned them.

 

[Christopher]

The Valkyrie test was strange; I think it's an interesting idea to test this, but they completely overlooked what from what I've read is the reason most commonly quoted for the failure of the assassination attempt - the thick solid steel legs of the conference table and that the bomb was placed on the wrong side of the table legs.

They didn't overlook it. Their test rigs did include the tables, and they made a point of positioning the briefcase exactly where it was relative to Hitler in reality. Hell, we were shown Jamie placing the briefcase under the table before he left the bunker. But that wasn't the variable they were testing here, because that variable isn't in dispute. It's a given that it was a factor. They weren't asking the general question of why Hitler survived. They were testing the validity of one specific allegation, namely that he survived because of where the meeting was held.

As they said, there are two things that make an explosion lethal: the shrapnel and the pressure wave. They weren't testing the shrapnel issue, because it's undisputed that the table protected Hitler's upper body from the shrapnel. They were testing only the pressure wave question, because that's the one that's subject to uncertainty, and because it allowed them to explore a principle of science in an engaging way.

Science isn't about trying to test everything at once. Science is about testing one variable at a time. That doesn't mean you're ignoring other questions. It just means you have to take them one at a time, because if you vary more than one parameter in a given experiment, you can't be sure which of them is responsible for any change you get.

 

[Trekker4747]

I really enjoyed this episode and it felt a lot more "like it" than other episodes in the past. I even enjoyed the stuff the Junior Mythbusters did, when I heard what they were doing in the opening segments as it seemed like they were just testing another idiom whose meaning is just a use of words so it made me thinking of a comment someone made a few weeks ago when they said "next we'll see if it really IS easy to bake pie!"

The Valkyrie myth was well done although I too thought that the explosion blowing out the doors of the shipping container had an effect and thought that maybe they should've completely burried the container. (Or made a conventional door in it on the far wall and buried the container with the main doors inside the berm) I also wonder if the "real bunker" was "more buried" than that. There's a bit of a difference between placing a a shipping container under a mound of dirt and a real bomb shelter being buried, covered in concrete and then buried under heavy dirt. But I guess the overall "idea" of the myth was still tested. Impressive to think that either of those explosions were survivable in any form.

This was one of the better Jamie/Adam myths the two have done together in a while. Kudos.

The Myth done with Kari, Tori and Grant was fun and interesting too and I'm dubious to some of the results in it (I think there may have been a bit of a "placebo effect" happening here) it was still interesting to watch them test and interesting that, for the most part, it seemed to work.

 

[Forbin]

Ya know, every once in a while I see the Mythterns having an absolute ball at the shooting range or the bomb range and I think, I want THEIR job!! And then somebody makes them stay awake all night and sticks them in an icehouse for half an hour and I think, well, fuck that noise!

 

[Trekker4747]

I'd be a Junior Mythbuster and do whatever they asked of me so long as I got to work with Kari.

 

[Christopher]

By the way, I don't think this warrants its own thread, but I've discovered there's an odd sort of Mythbusters spinoff on The Science Channel, airing weekdays at 4 PM Eastern. It's called Head Rush, but it's really full-length (or nearly so) Mythbusters episodes repackaged for a younger audience and a more educational setting. It's commercial-free, and the commercials are replaced with brief segments hosted by Kari, which are basically a bunch of vignettes about random science topics, generally ending in a multiple-choice question with a promptly given answer. Also it's more heavily censored than in its original form; all product logos are blurred, even more so than usual, and even mild profanity that normally gets through on Discovery is bleeped here.

After seeing one episode, I'm unimpressed by it; its random factoids don't really do anything to teach the process of science, the skills of analysis and critical thinking. And some of its demonstrations just aren't very good. Still, those who are eager for more opportunities to watch Kari Byron might want to take a look.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, I recorded an episode of it because I saw Kari was in it and I watched it. Nifty but not impressed, I think that the original Mythbusters is a far better "learning experience" for children (language and produce logos aside.)

 

[Christopher]

And it's weird that it's actually just Mythbusters with a few minutes of unrelated science material tacked on, and yet they changed the name of the show altogether. Why not just call it something like Mythbusters Enhanced, or at least Head Rush Presents Mythbusters? (Or Kari and the Mythbusters, though that sounds like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon about a music group that solves crimes.) From the description I read, I was expecting something that was mostly a new show hosted by Kari, integrating clips from MB that would connect to more detailed experiments demonstrated by Kari and maybe some young co-stars. Now, that's how you'd make MB more scientific -- trim out the extraneous stuff, focus on the scientific aspects, and elaborate on them.

And heck, if they're basically doing commercial-free Mythbusters, why not just air the full-length Australian versions, the ones that aren't hacked down for American broadcast? It would be cool to get to see those.

 

[Trekker4747]

Never under-estimate the foolishness of studio heads. Especially the ones at Discovery.