Well, to be fair the "reality" of what's happening in the movie (good over evil) is different than the implication of what's happening. Pretty much all of the Hollywood myths they test can be waved away with saying, "You missed the point, the good guy's stunts ALWAYS work!"
No, that's not what I'm saying. It's not about "stunts" and luck going the hero's way; the idea is that the hero wins because he's more skilled
than the competition, because he's the best there is. It's not meant to be a fight between two people of equal skill levels. The idea is that the hero earns
the victory by being faster, more accurate, better-trained.
Anyway I also noticed in the slow-mos of Kari's "faster reaction time" that it looks like she shoots the gun before it was fully pointed forward, I think a degree of accuracy needed to be put into this on if "getting the shot off first" would have even worked to take down the other guy.
It's also very strange to me that they seemed to base it on only a single trial per team member. It should've been an average of multiple trials.
The discrepancy between the Junior team's attempts working and Jamie/Adam's "real word" testing could be chalked up to the difference between reacting to a light simply coming on and reacting to a movement (which may be too subtle to notice quickly enough.)
That's not the point. The point is that we can't know
whether that's the case or not because the two parts of the experiment were tested by different people. Science isn't about guessing the reasons for things, it's about finding out for sure. If two experiments differ in two
simultaneous ways, there's no way to know which of those differences was responsible for the difference in the results, so it's a crappy experimental design. You're supposed to isolate each variable, change only one thing at a time, so that you know for sure that that's the reason for the difference. It could
be that the difference in results was due to the difference in situations, but there's no proof
of that because the two situations were tested by different groups of people, and the difference could've been in the people instead. This is simply not how you do science. The Mythbusters' standards have really gone to pot.
Another thing that bugged me was the "shooting two guns" retest (that's the one I forgot about before) -- when they shot at two separate targets, they calculated their accuracy just by adding up the total score of both targets. They should've divided that result by two to get the average accuracy per