Well, some passed, some didn't. Therefore...
The point is that you assume that the same knife models would pass and fail the same way if more nonrepeatable and random knife abuse was inflicted on them, and I know by the obviously random nature of the abuse that your assumption cannot be made with any assurance at all.
Also, it would be easy to rig these videos to give the results you want to - a half inch change in where a knife is clamped, small changes in where the knife is hit by the hammer (or the angle of the swing), or where it is layed on the concrete block would mean the difference between failing and surviving. And there a lot more (and easier to hide from the viewer) ways you could bias the tests.
This is what you have when you get people to think a video review is yielding repeatable test results. The opportunity to bias the tests and profit from it exists with these videos. Maybe I can work on this, and present a way to do some video reviews on an unaffiliated website with a deal in place with a major distributor of knives who wants to show how "tough" and "strong" their knives are. I would not do that (I like to sleep at night), but some people have done a lot worse.
I'm still awaiting with baited breath the wonderful reviews of the Guyon using the scientific methods the Guyon has devised.
So you're stuck again on your theory that "you have to do a test yourself before you can figure out the difference between
actual testing that leads to a valid conclusion and
videos of random knife destruction done in a nonrepeatable manner" again? At least come up with an argument that hasn't been shot down in flames already....
What are you trying to say? That people shouldn't disagree on the internet? Good luck with that crusade.
If even one young ninja that was attracted by nossy's slogans is enlightened to the fact that these videos are for entertainment purposes only, then it is worth the effort.
