Lulz at arguements based around insult rather than logic.
Although I get what your trying to say, taking more shots would add repitition and would make it possible to determine consistancy/inconsistancy, although that isn't needed because this experiment is to determine possibility and not probability. They simply do not need any more shots because the sniper proved that he can shoot between heartbeats by doing it perfectly and intentionally aswell as explaining how it is done. Let me put it another way incase you don't understand: Q) Can a sniper shoot between heartbeats? A) Yes, because the sniper did it. The question is answered so why bother trying to answer it again and again and so on?
But then again, nobody is as smart as you, Mr. Superiority complex. Especially those dumb Americans with their Steve Jobs, Jonas Salk, or Jimi Hendrix. So I guess you can't lose, right?   See 15 other replies

it wouldn't be so bad if they acknowledged it.   See 15 other replies

i think the premise was could it be done. a could it be done is very different from how consistently it can be done thus not requiring as much experimenting.   See 15 other replies

Then why do they call it "fight science" and not "can he fight"? That is what people are talking about here. And by the way more shots would not of been more experiments as you so dumbly put it, it would have made it an experiment. one. instead its a bunch of guys shooting guns for an audience of morons. And hey, for a laugh, read the latest Onion article. It's about how the science channel just can't dumb down science anymore for americans. Apparently Really Big Things is the limit. Oh well, at least America has creationist nuts. That's sorta sciency, right?   See 15 other replies

That isn't what anyone is talking about. way to miss the point buddy.   See 15 other replies

Exactly. Without repetition it just isn't science. But that's no surprise given the state of americans these days.   See 15 other replies

This experiment wasn't about determining consistancy or verifying any such law that says the sniper does what he does 100% of the time, it was about determining if it can be done and/or if the sniper can do it. And seeing as the sniper did it and the data was recorded, albeit once, it is still enough for it to be a fact.
Now if the sniper shot onbeat there would probably be more shots(or experiments) to be had, but they got everything they needed so anything more would be, by definition, superfluous.   See 15 other replies