The myths I never cared for weren't the myths, themselves, but their conclusions from their test results. Sometimes they would get hung up on one specific part of the myth and if that one specific part didn't hold, they'd call the whole thing busted. The Build Team was especially bad about this.

For example, using a bow and arrow on horseback. The "myth" is that mounted archers got more penetration by loosing while on the move (provided they were riding toward their target). Simple math confirms that much, as the velocity of the rider is added to the velocity of the arrow when loosed. They tested it and confirmed that, yes, there actually is, in fact, greater penetration when loosing while on the move. But the team gets hung up on, "the myth states that it's twice the penetration and that's not what we saw, so this myth is BUSTED!"

Another example? Diving toward the ground when a grenade going off being safer than trying to run from it (and hence being on your feet). They tested the hell out of this and confirmed that, yes, there are way fewer fragments that are likely to hit you if you're flat on the ground that if you're standing and have a much better chance of survival. But then the team gets hung up on, "the myth states that you're be completely unscathed, and as you can see that isn't the case, so this myth is BUSTED!"

The Build Team did this a lot, and it drove me nuts.