Mister Fandango wrote:
Again, the 3-hour limit has nothing to do with the myth. The myth was based on a real, verifiable event and in that real, verifiable event, no parachute was made and used in three hours. It was not a part of the myth, unless "Mythbusters themselves making shit up randomly and then trying to pass it off as an accurate part of the myth" counts as a myth.
You're missing the point. The myth is not the documented event. You can't call something a myth when you know it happened -- as you yourself admit in your next paragraph. A myth is an unproven claim, account, or belief. In this case, the myth was the criminal's belief
that if he made a parachute out of supplies in the hotel room and jumped out the window, he could escape. Or, to come at it another way, what they were testing was his escape plan
, just like in the many other prisoner-escape myths they've done over the years.
Sure, granted, they were testing whether it could've worked if he hadn't been interrupted after 3 hours. So sure, yeah, they could
have defined their hypothetical scenario as "What if the police had waited longer than 3 hours and he hadn't been arrested before trying to jump?" But instead, they chose to define it as "What if he'd finished the parachute just before the police raided?" There could be multiple reasons they did that. The main one, of course, was that deadlines are dramatic and it would be more challenging for the team if they had a limited time to make their experimental designs. But maybe there were other reasons. It could be that in the actual case, the parachute was already completed when the police stormed the room, so that it was
made in less than three hours. Or maybe they decided it was simpler to alter the behavior of just one person than of all the police officers and officials who were involved in the decision to storm the room.