Mythbusters: Moody Brook

[King Jester]

Seems like the renown Mythbusters from Discovery Channel have more than just urban myths and some neat special effects up their sleeve.

Script-draft for one of next seasons shows on first post.

 

King Jester

[King Jester]

 

Adam: "Say Jamie, most of the urban myths we bust have their origin on some wild claim by a single individual, who usually remains unknown or happens to be the second cousin to the auntie of some old friends neighbor college mate, who sets the myth to roll, and as it passes from mouth to mouth everybody adds a little bit"

Jamie: "Yeah, you're right. In the end nobody really knows what happened and nobody has ever seen it happening again."

Adam: "Well, there is also that other type of myth. You know, those historical myths, allegedly dozens have witnessed them, but truly no actual witness is to find, and most people believe they are true cause "facts" are recollected in books, the internet, newspapers or so"

Jamie: "The difference with urban myths is that urban myths are generally regarded as myths, people known they are myths, and choose to believe them, risking only to be labelled "naive" if the myth is particularly stupid...but those other historic myths are generally considered to be factual, undisputed truth. "Its written on a book, you know, it can't be wrong", is what people say"

Adam: "There is even a deeper analysis to be made about those historic myths. With urban myths, no matter if you believe or reject them, you will fall into two categories: you're either skeptic or naive. With the historic myths, if you dare to question them, you're deemed as revisionist, a troll, a liar or worse. People really go ballistic. Sounds like a good project..."

Jamie: "What are you suggesting?"

Adam: "Ever heard about a place called Moody Brook?"

Jamie: "Not from the top of my head..."

Adam: "I'm sure you have. Moody Brook barracks, on the Falklands"

Jamie: "Oh, yes, I've read about it. What about Moody Brook?"

Adam: "Well, there is this myth about argie commandos who went in hard shooting the barracks up"

Jamie: "No Adam. You got that all wrong. The myth some people would like us to believe is that the argies went in soft, with teargas or so, when in fact they did blow the place up with grenades."

Adam: "No, Jamie. You're wrong. Do you see this is the classic example, find me a witness! The brits weren't even there to see it, were they?"

Jamie: "Well, no. Fortunately for them they were gone. As it says HERE , if you click your way to the complete text, argies wanted to kill as many RMs as possible while they still were in bed! "

Adam: "In all objectivity, Jamie, that source seems to be overstating things a little. Other sources, as this WELL RESEARCHED ONE does not support such a claim"

Jamie: "Well, smarty. They don't give any witness testimony either, do they?. And what about this PICTURE here. It clearly shows the barracks flattened."

Adam: "If you read the misleading text twice, you will realize that the damage shown was done "later" in the war. In fact by british bombs. So, not very many hard pieces of evidence left after a couple of 1000lb. hit the building, right?"

Jamie: "OK, that picture is irrelevant, as it does not show the barracks as they were after the argie attack. So, now what? How should we tackle this myth?"

 

To be continued....

 

King Jester

[FlyingCanOpener]

Here we go again...

[Stevely]

King Jester still has a bee in his bonnet over the Falklands after all this time. Who knew. I must confess, I didn't see this coming.

[Grant Whitley]

Should be pretty interesting, though. Mythbusters is a decent show, and the two hosts tend to really get into a project that involves guns.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Originally posted by Grant Whitley:

Should be pretty interesting, though.  Mythbusters is a decent show, and the two hosts tend to really get into a project that involves guns.

 

 

Well, a simple Google search proves otherwise...

 

Search "Mythbusters+Falklands" and "Mythbusters+Moody+Brook" and see what you find...

 

[Edited by FlyingCanOpener (09 Dec 2004).]

[BillB]

Originally posted by King Jester:

Seems like the renown Mythbusters from Discovery Channel have more than just urban myths and some neat special effects up their sleeve.

Script-draft for one of next seasons shows on first post.

King Jester

 

 

Yawn. So what exactly is your point here, Kingjester? A minor discrepancy - possibly - in a peripheral event that has no bearing whatever on the ultimate outcome of the Falklands War or the events leading up to it. Based on the verbal drivellings of a pair of clowns on a cable TV show. Renowned? Renowned for what, looking like geeks with strange headgear? Spare me.

 

Be that as it may , it does not matter whether the Ca Cdo Anf knocked on the door of Moody Brook barracks all nice and politely, or stormed the place. They had no business being there, they were invaders trespassing on another state's sovereign territory and that is all there is to it whether you like it or not.

 

I should have thought your energy might be better employed in working on how to instil some professionalism and basic soldiering skills into your Army so next time they can put up a half-competent performance. That would save you having to cook up conspiracy theories and strange ideas like "the Argentine Army only lost because they committed a few more errors than their opponents" like you did last time.

 

 

BillB

[mattblack]

I have a hard time believing that they would pick such an obscure subject . Stranger things have happened , but going from "does a duck's quack echo" to such a small piece of obscure , foriegn military history would be something else .I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but "strange internet rumor" is what I say .

 

It does sound like Bill has had one too many sour apples : it's a show meant for entertainment and is based upon the plausibility of certain things but it's never been portrayed as a definitive study on any subject and they have given updates and/or retractions . Calling them drivelling clowns seems to be a preemptive strike on results that haven't taken place .

[FlyingCanOpener]

You must haven't seen Falklands debates here either...

[BillB]

Originally posted by mattblack:

  I have a hard time believing that they would pick such an obscure subject . Stranger things have happened , but going from "does a duck's quack echo" to such a small piece of obscure , foriegn military history would be something else .I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but "strange internet rumor" is what I say .

It does sound like Bill has had one too many sour apples : it's a show meant for entertainment and is based upon the plausibility of certain things but it's never been portrayed as a definitive study on any subject and they have given updates and/or retractions . Calling them drivelling clowns seems to be a preemptive strike on results that haven't taken place .

 

You're prolly right about the sour apples, Matt, but as CanOpener points out, you don't appear to be aware of KJ's past history in this regard. He hasn't put up the comment to advertise a "show meant for entertainment" but to support a political point he argued unsuccessfully last time he raised this subject, as he does with monotonous regularity and with no acknowledgement of logic, argument, evidence or any perspective except his own. Which is why I went in with both feet this time at the outset.

 

Ref the show, actually I have had the misfortune to see it a few times, and I am sticking with my opinion that they are a pair of drivelling clowns. The show may not be portrayed as being a definitive study or whatever, but that is exactly how anything they come up with will be regarded that way by the many of the targetted audience for that kind of stuff. Which is perhaps why they ought to stick to lightweight trivia.

 

Off for another ration of crab apples now...

 

BillB

 

 

 

[Edited by BillB (11 Dec 2004).]

[FITZ]

Originally posted by mattblack:

  I have a hard time believing that they would pick such an obscure subject . Stranger things have happened , but going from "does a duck's quack echo" to such a small piece of obscure , foriegn military history would be something else .I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but "strange internet rumor" is what I say .

 

 

Reading the alleged "script" below leads me to immediately believe this is a hoax. Not only is this subject far too obscure for an American TV audience, but how could the hosts possibly test this scientifically? Besides that, the heavy use of slang in the text is indicitive of how someone on this board might talk, not the hosts of a TV show trying to present a subject the audience is completely unfamiliar with.

 

Unlike Bill, I'm a big fan of the show. There is so much promotion of nonsensical, unscientfic ideas on TV today I'm all about a show that tries to dispell myths in a scientfic fashion as opposed to say, more Alien Autopsy BS. Critical thinking is in increasingly short supply these days. Anything that promotes it is OK in my book.

 

PS

 

Anyone else think its kind of wierd that we are debunking a story about a show that's about debunking myths?

 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by FITZ (11 Dec 2004).]

 

[Edited by FITZ (11 Dec 2004).]

[mattblack]

My personal opinion of the Falklands/Malvinas is that while I have nothing but respect for the men who fought and died there , the whole episode to me seems akin to coming to blows over possession of a 5 lb sack of dog crap .

The premise that an American television show would pick such a minute aspect of a conflict that is unknown to most Americans should have raised some flags . On the very , very , very slight chance they might have done a special Military Myths , I could possibly see the exceptionally slight chance that they might , if they had a sympathetic Argentine producer or whatnot , examine something like the supposed repairs to Invincible but I don't see any way of testing that in an amusing for TV way either .

 

[Edited by mattblack (11 Dec 2004).]

[BillB]

Originally posted by mattblack:

  My personal opinion of the Falklands/Malvinas is that while I have nothing but respect for the men who fought and died there , the whole episode to me seems akin to coming to blows over possession of a 5 lb sack of dog crap .

  The premise that an American television show would pick such a minute aspect of a conflict that is unknown to most Americans should have raised some flags . On the very , very , very slight chance they might have done a special Military Myths , I could possibly see the exceptionally slight chance that they might , if they had a sympathetic Argentine producer or whatnot , examine something like the supposed repairs to Invincible but I don't see any way of testing that in an amusing for TV way either . <font size=1>[Edited by mattblack (11 Dec 2004).]

 

Fair comment, Matt, and generally speaking I agree. However, you appear to have missed that the 5lb sack of dog crap was not the issue. The issue was one of principle, specifically unprovoked military aggression and invasion of legally held territory belonging to another sovereign state against the wishes of the local populace. Given the amount of blood and treasure you Yanks - assuming you are a Yank - have expended on this principle on behalf of others, I thought you'd have appreciated that.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[SCFalken]

Argentina = Lost. Started it.

Britain = Won (group of Islands in the Middle of Bomphock, slightly used). Defending team.

 

Falken

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by mattblack:

the whole episode to me seems akin to coming to blows over possession of a 5 lb sack of dog crap.]

 

I hope the Argentines don't choose to invade Orkney on your watch Matt!

 

 

 

[Edited by Chris Werb (11 Dec 2004).]

[Chris Werb]

Originally posted by SCFalken:

Argentina = Lost. Started it.

Britain = Won (group of Islands in the Middle of Bomphock, slightly used). Defending team.

 

Falken

 

I'm not sure I'd describe Great Britain (or the UK) that way SC!

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Chris Werb (11 Dec 2004).]

 

[Edited by Chris Werb (11 Dec 2004).]

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by FlyingCanOpener:

 

Well, a simple Google search proves otherwise...

 

Search "Mythbusters+Falklands" and "Mythbusters+Moody+Brook" and see what you find...

 

<font size=1>[Edited by FlyingCanOpener (09 Dec 2004).]

 

Initially, I didn't pay much attention to the "script" that King Jester posted, as I couldn't see why anyone would post a fake cable TV show script which purported to cover this topic. Well, no one this side of Puerto Argentino, anyway.

 

But after having read it, there are enough minor, niggling grammatical mistakes and instances of odd word usage to make me think it's a fake, given that the poster is likely not a native English speaker. Take the repeated use of "argies", for example. That's a bit of British slang that would probably be unfamiliar to most Americans. Unlikely that it would get thrown around like that on an American TV show. Previously made points about the unfamiliarity of the subject are quite valid, also.

[Ox]

It is a spoof and quite a witty one at that, can't see why anyone would think otherwise or go to the effort of trying to see if it is tru.

 

Nice one KJ.

[SCFalken]

Originally posted by Chris Werb:

I'm not sure I'd describe Great Britain (or the UK) that way SC! 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Chris Werb (11 Dec 2004).]

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Chris Werb (11 Dec 2004).]

 

I was speaking of the Falklands, Chris...

 

Falken

[Jim Martin]

I just did my own searching, and there is no Mythbusters episode for anything relating to the Falklands conflict.

 

What a maroon.

[BillB]

Originally posted by Ox:

It is a spoof and quite a witty one at that, can't see why anyone would think otherwise or go to the effort of trying to see if it is tru.

Nice one KJ. 

 

Sorry, Ox, I must be missing something here. What was witty about it?

 

BillB

[King Jester]

Sorry, Ox, I must be missing something here. What was witty about it?

May be that a few bought into the hoax and felt compelled to find out if its for real?? LOL

 

For the way I read your first reply, you bought it too. Now show us you're a grown up, and laugh about yourself for while.

 

BTW, thanks Ox

 

 

He hasn't put up the comment to advertise a "show meant for entertainment" but to support a political point he argued unsuccessfully last time he raised this subject, as he does with monotonous regularity and with no acknowledgement of logic, argument, evidence or any perspective except his own. Which is why I went in with both feet this time at the outset.

 

If have to admitt, I got quite a show and stayed entertained the last couple of days!!!!

 

Now, BillB, as you have already admitted you are not willing to debatte this issue in a civilized way, and prefer to react overdefensively, do you care to proof that it's me who brings up the topic regularly? It wasn't me LAST TIME , and in fact this one is the very first time in about two and half years since I visit this great site I have started a topic about the Falklands/Malvinas. You may cross-check the forum database if you wish.

 

As for who acknowledges evidence or logic, after you could not provide any supporting evidence other than the hear-say myth, you finally acknowledged that Middlebrook was probably wrong about the attack on the barracks and you spun some naive theory about him being unaware of the RAF bombing Moody Brook later in June.

 

However, you appear to have missed that the 5lb sack of dog crap was not the issue. The issue was one of principle, specifically unprovoked military aggression and invasion of legally held territory belonging to another sovereign state against the wishes of the local populace.

...

Be that as it may , it does not matter whether the Ca Cdo Anf knocked on the door of Moody Brook barracks all nice and politely, or stormed the place. They had no business being there, they were invaders trespassing on another state's sovereign territory and that is all there is to it whether you like it or not.

 

Do you box? You should! I envy the way you can twist your waist and shift your guard from one side to another in an eyeblink.

 

I read some of your posts from the old topic again and compared them with the present ones. Whenever your point about anything you deem to be the most important aspect of an issue starts weakening for whatever reason, that issue immediately bears no more importance to you. Take the case of artillery, where you stressed it several times that we outnumbered your boys. When if was shown with real documented numbers that the combined artillery firepower of the Task Force was at least equal if not superior to ours, you flipped and stated Outnumbered has nothing to do with it, as has been pointed out to you already sic..

 

I see the same thing happening here again. Although back in June you had already written that it is unimportant if the argie Ca Cdo Anf had or did not have intend to kill the RMs on Moody Broock or Stanley, you nevertheless sided with the poster who actually brought up the myth back then, and added that wathever way, actually having the intend to avoid bloodshed or just posing as if afterwards is only a blunt attempt to gain moral grounds or justify a wrongfull action.

 

Now, when you suspect I may have something up my sleeve in regards to actually bust the myth (why else would I summon the Mythbusters??) the issue suddenly bears no more importance to you and you redirect the debatte towards the sovereignty issue. You really can change your guard fast.

 

Finally, although it is off-topic and I shouldn't go off-topic, you should use the word 'sovereign' more sparsely. Some reasons to do so are, in no particular order:

1) The UK took the islands forcefully and wrongfully from a free, emancipated state, which was at the time enforcing sovereignty there.

2) The UK had NEVER peacefull legal domain of the territory, as the islands have been disputed EVER SINCE, including the use of arms on at least to ocassions.

3) The international community has judged the collonial status as it is unacceptable, and urged the parts to negotiate.

4) By 1982 the islands were in any case 'dependent territories' (aka crown colonny) controlled by, BUT not integral part of the proper UK, according to the UKs own legislation. As of the will of the 'populace', even as of today, 2004, the Falklands are not a self-governing collony, nor do they have parliamentary representation, and remain classified as a 'stage 2' overseas territory. You can check that all in Wikipedia, if in doubt.

 

Lets hear from Adam and Jamie again....soon.

 

King Jester

[Brasidas]

Originally posted by King Jester:

<snip>

4) By 1982 the islands were in any case 'dependent territories' (aka crown colonny) controlled by, BUT not integral part of the proper UK, according to the UKs own legislation. As of the will of the 'populace', even as of today, 2004, the Falklands are not a self-governing collony, nor do they have parliamentary representation, and remain classified as a 'stage 2' overseas territory. You can check that all in Wikipedia, if in doubt. 

 

Lets hear from Adam and Jamie again....soon.

 

King Jester

 

*sigh*

 

Jester, did the populace of the Falklands have a plebicite recently to determine who would maintain control of the Falkland island group?

 

I seem to remember they preferred remaining unrepresented with the comparitively stable Brits than to be subject to the frequently military junta ridden Argentine republic. That's just from memory however.

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by BillB:

I should have thought your energy might be better employed in working on how to instil some professionalism and basic soldiering skills into your Army so next time they can put up a half-competent performance.

BillB

 

The Argentines could have easily done better. I believe Hastings goes into some detail about this, but the Argentines had originally planned the operation for a specific time of the year when their conscripts would have been in the service for the better part of a year. As it happened, they fought the war with a new class of conscripts, many of whom had little or no training. My recollection is that those units composed of recalled reservists from recent classes of conscripts did quite a bit better.

 

Also, the Argentine command was strangely affected by the notion that the British were going to attempt a direct amphibious assault on Stanley and much of their preparation and unit deployment was affected by this. Some of their best units(RI 25 springs to mind) basically sat out the war because of this. I suspect that this also contributed to the poor supply situation of the Argentine units on the peaks west of Stanley.

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by King Jester:

May be that a few bought into the hoax and felt compelled to find out if its for real?? LOL

 

Could it be that this issue doesn't preoccupy the rest of us?