AA/SDS recasting issue...

[ImprisonedFett]

What happens after this case has been settled or won by either SDS or LFL? Will the supporters say, "Oh it looks like we were wrong about everything. We knew that SDS had recast several pieces from another armorer, but we still believed it to be ok. We now view things as you all see them. We are now in the light and understand all of the previous views." Or will you all after the trial stick to your guns and say,"The jury doesn't know squat about props or pictures, we still know the truth". I don't think any of the viewpoints will change after the trial. I believe ones here are fighting to fight. They want to speak elagantly on the subject and use big words to sway people's views. Here's the thing though, people's views ARE swayed. Of all the supporters in older threads, even the really adament ones, there are really only a handful still fighting. Perhaps the other ones have truthfully looked at the evidence and can admit that their support has swayed some?

Put on your hip waders because this sh.t is getting thick.

 

[SithLord]

I'm an AA supporter...I have four of his helmets and love them (paid the same as everyone else by the way). Now, maybe I am easy to please because I certainly wasn't an expert on the other helmets before I got my first AA stunt helmet, and I keep them in storage or might someday display them so robustness of construction wasn't high on my list of qualities I expected. I'm happy with them, as I tend only to buy items that have an "original lineage".

Even though I support AA, I already suggested that the mods could make a statement to the effect that there is allegation that AA has recast RPF member's work and therefore the RPF does not support SDS as a dealer. However, that would not prevent RPF members from selling SDS products from their collection, but it would prevent SDS representatives...bona fide dealers...from selling here.

Does that affect my impression of AA? Only insofar as I'm a purist and would wonder why he would need to use someone else's material to make his suit. If he used material from someone who's made a lot of money selling suits doesn't bother me. If he used material from someone who was _just_ a collector...then it would bother me.

If the mods position is that there is an allegation, they do so then as a report rather than an accusation of AA unless they too wish to accuse AA. Whether or not AA recast one or more parts from a member's suit is a possibility but again because he's changed parts of the prototype suit we can only assume it's from the same source. Plus I have yet to see the inside of an original ab plate, for example.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by ImprisonedFett@Jan 13 2006, 12:36 PM
What happens after this case has been settled or won by either SDS or LFL?  Will the supporters say, "Oh it looks like we were wrong about everything. We knew that SDS had recast several pieces from another armorer, but we still believed it to be ok.  We now view things as you all see them. We are now in the light and understand all of the previous views."  Or will you all after the trial stick to your guns and say,"The jury doesn't know squat about props or pictures, we still know the truth".  I don't think any of the viewpoints will change after the trial. I believe ones here are fighting to fight.  They want to speak elagantly on the subject and use big words to sway people's views.  Here's the thing though, people's views ARE swayed.  Of all the supporters in older threads, even the really adament ones, there are really only a handful still fighting.  Perhaps the other ones have truthfully looked at the evidence and can admit that their support has swayed some? 

Put on your hip waders because this sh.t is getting thick.

[snapback]1158080[/snapback]​

Well I know if AA is found to not have the original molds, or have lied about his actual work in ANH, I will certainly admit that I was wrong about him. I'll be profoundly disappointed, not about being wrong (we are human after all) but about the fact that we aren't getting something from someone involved in an iconic film.

 

[Darth Detroit]

Thats well put, Mike.

 

[greatgarlando]

Why does it make me feel so dirty for agreeing with just about every thing Lord Abaddon is saying? I always thought a man was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I have read all of the AA/SDS threads over the last year or so and all I see is a bunch of speculation and no proof of any thing. No proof that AA has any original molds and no proof that he recast any thing. Maybe we will see some molds in the court case. Until the case is over we should refrain on what the RPF's position is. Because all I see is blatant speculation from both sides

 

[Darth Mawr]

Could all this be a ruse to get possession of the molds?

Ok, that's my limit for conspiracy thinking today.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

 

[RKW]

I must have missed the chapter in the book ART OF WAR which discussed
"How to bore your opponent so that they lose the will to live".

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

[snapback]1158191[/snapback]​

[/b]

You've made up your mind Ben with the "facts" you believe. So...there's nothing to discuss. And I wouldn't talk about giving benefit of doubt when you shouldn't, especially in your current circles.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 01:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 01:29 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

[snapback]1158191[/snapback]​

You've made up your mind Ben with the "facts" you believe. So...there's nothing to discuss. And I wouldn't talk about giving benefit of doubt when you shouldn't, especially in your current circles.

[snapback]1158199[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike lets see I have been known to hang out with you and if I run into you at capricon I will probably do the same.. Bottom line is the points I have brought up are not fiction or hearsay they are facts that have been established. Yet you continue to say its BS. The people I associate with have nothing to do with my opinion.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 13 2006, 02:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 13 2006, 02:56 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

[snapback]1158191[/snapback]​

You've made up your mind Ben with the "facts" you believe. So...there's nothing to discuss. And I wouldn't talk about giving benefit of doubt when you shouldn't, especially in your current circles.

[snapback]1158199[/snapback]​

Mike lets see I have been known to hang out with you and if I run into you at capricon I will probably do the same.. Bottom line is the points I have brought up are not fiction or hearsay they are facts that have been established. Yet you continue to say its BS. The people I associate with have nothing to do with my opinion.

[snapback]1158226[/snapback]​

[/b]

Ditto about hanging out.

As for the facts, the problem is you don't know the facts Ben, that's been my point, but it's not getting anywhere. You say he was contracted...was he? Have you seen the reciepts? Was he actually paid? Or was there something else like how Lucas arranged financing by allowing 20th Cent to take the movies, but he kept the licensing rights? Did AA sign away rights to the imagery created under UK law? Was LFL even bothering with that? It was Mollo (I think) who said he hired AA...so did LFL even know about AA?

You talk about being contracted...there are protections and understandings *both* ways and the fact is we just don't know the facts involved. But again, my comments are moot as you have made up your mind, and I don't happen to agree.

My comment about who you hang out with is in regards to yours about giving benefit of the doubt. I have told you some things about some people and yet, to my knowledge, you still freely and actively associate with them giving them benefit of the doubt. And I'm just saying to you, as you said to me, you could be wrong about giving benefit of the doubt too.

 

[ImprisonedFett]

And have you SEEN every ANH trooper helmet and armor? Oh I guess that explains why the current armor doesnt match ANY of the screen armor. I guess his current armor is just pulled differently. :rolleyes

Not one of us here has the reciepts, or the copyright info or the EXACT knowledge of exactly what happened in the 70's. But I guess we need all of that information to clearly see with our eyes how even if he has rights with the "Original Molds", his molds are so far from "Original" they do not even slightly resemble a TK suit. But I guess we need to see every inside piece on every piece of armor for a valid opinion around here.

 

[Emeldahay]

Some of you guys have post counts ranging from 1000 to almost 7000. B)

My question is this - did you post most of them in this thread?

If anyones wondering the AA suit is worth every penny as is the GF. I have a GF and an AA suit. Love both greatly. I dont have a problem with the issues raised against AA as I dont see GF in a more or less honerable light than AA. :angel :angry

I`m actually very suprised this thread has stayed open so long. Other forums would have closed this type of dead horse beating a while back. :eek

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Emeldahay@Jan 13 2006, 03:34 PM
Some of you guys have post counts ranging from 1000 to almost 7000. B)

My question is this - did you post most of them in this thread? 

If anyones wondering the AA suit is worth every penny as is the GF.  I have a GF and an AA suit.  Love both greatly.  I dont have a problem with the issues raised against AA as I dont see GF in a more or less honerable light than AA.  :angel  :angry

I`m actually very suprised this thread has stayed open so long.  Other forums would have closed this type of dead horse beating a while back.    :eek

[snapback]1158262[/snapback]​

I love it when a solid, honest opinion appears on the merry-go-round.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 02:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 02:04 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

[snapback]1158191[/snapback]​

You've made up your mind Ben with the "facts" you believe. So...there's nothing to discuss. And I wouldn't talk about giving benefit of doubt when you shouldn't, especially in your current circles.

[snapback]1158199[/snapback]​

Mike lets see I have been known to hang out with you and if I run into you at capricon I will probably do the same.. Bottom line is the points I have brought up are not fiction or hearsay they are facts that have been established. Yet you continue to say its BS. The people I associate with have nothing to do with my opinion.

[snapback]1158226[/snapback]​

Ditto about hanging out.

As for the facts, the problem is you don't know the facts Ben, that's been my point, but it's not getting anywhere. You say he was contracted...was he? Have you seen the reciepts? Was he actually paid? Or was there something else like how Lucas arranged financing by allowing 20th Cent to take the movies, but he kept the licensing rights? Did AA sign away rights to the imagery created under UK law? Was LFL even bothering with that? It was Mollo (I think) who said he hired AA...so did LFL even know about AA?

You talk about being contracted...there are protections and understandings *both* ways and the fact is we just don't know the facts involved. But again, my comments are moot as you have made up your mind, and I don't happen to agree.

My comment about who you hang out with is in regards to yours about giving benefit of the doubt. I have told you some things about some people and yet, to my knowledge, you still freely and actively associate with them giving them benefit of the doubt. And I'm just saying to you, as you said to me, you could be wrong about giving benefit of the doubt too.

[snapback]1158236[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike once again lets use some logic here if I ask you to make some things for me and I pay you. Do you think I am expecting you to go ahead and make and start making money off my ideas. I mean I trusted you to make my stuff. If things were so cool why didn't AA contact LFL and let them know what he was doing? And what about the issue of the imperial cog we know for a fact AA didn't design that.

Back to the benefit of a doubt. Mike I personally believe if I was running some questionable operation. I personally believe you wouldnt see what I was doing wrong either and defend me. I have seen you do this too many times. Just because AA worked on star wars doesn't make him above the law. Why isnt everyone else that worked on the movie doing the same thing?

Once again lets revisit the facts.

We have the letter from AA finally admitting to reworking the moulds. Something that was disputed before.

AA did in fact use a recast MR stand which I know you don't think is a big deal but speaks volumes.

And now what about the allegations of the recast armor.

 

[exoray]

I always thought a man was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I have read all of the AA/SDS threads over the last year or so and all I see is a bunch of speculation and no proof of any thing. No proof that AA has any original molds and no proof that he recast any thing. Maybe we will see some molds in the court case. Until the case is over we should refrain on what the RPF's position is. Because all I see is blatant speculation from both sides

This isn't a criminal case, there is NO innocent nor guilty, only a judgment/ruling/finding for burden of liability based on a more likely then not level of evidence and speculation provided... Since there is no innocent nor guilty in civil court, when you enter the court you start out in the middle at 50/50 (innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here) and the court desides what side of the middle you are on, even if that margin is as little as 51% vs 49% there is a win for judgment... There doesn't need to be any proof of anything in a civil case, just a sway of opinion and belief to 51% based on the information provided for a win... If the speculation tossed out by one side in more believable then the counter argument, speculation wins...

Civil court is generally joked about as being a 1% win, and rightfully true when you start in the middle at 50/50 if the other side just shows you are 1% likely to have done what they say (even with speculation) you lose... Burden of proof beyond a doubt doesn't exist in civil court...

BTW pleading the 5th in civil court IS weighted against you...

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 13 2006, 05:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 13 2006, 05:46 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 13 2006, 02:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 13 2006, 11:22 AM
Oh, one more FYI...I will no longer derail this thread with outside issues being raised from the Prop-Ed people about EDC, etc.  The question is about SDS and AA, not about me nor long past issues.  So leave the baiting at the bait shop and let's get back to the original question presented to the Anti-AA crowd.

[snapback]1158068[/snapback]​

Well then you should have no problem addressing my comments since I am not a Prop-Ed person. My point is Mike you have a history of giving people the benefit of the doubt when you really shouldn't be.

Once again and please stick to the facts. AA was paid for his work by LFL to make those helmets. They did not ask him to continue making them again for his own profit. AA was payed for the job he did period. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I deal with these types of cases all the time. And I have seen pretty interesting defenses against those charges. But to this date I have always seen the person that truly created and owned the rights win their case. If AA from the start said hey these are being from reworked moulds and the numerous other questionable things as well as quality issues that I have seen I would probably own one.

[snapback]1158191[/snapback]​

You've made up your mind Ben with the "facts" you believe. So...there's nothing to discuss. And I wouldn't talk about giving benefit of doubt when you shouldn't, especially in your current circles.

[snapback]1158199[/snapback]​

Mike lets see I have been known to hang out with you and if I run into you at capricon I will probably do the same.. Bottom line is the points I have brought up are not fiction or hearsay they are facts that have been established. Yet you continue to say its BS. The people I associate with have nothing to do with my opinion.

[snapback]1158226[/snapback]​

Ditto about hanging out.

As for the facts, the problem is you don't know the facts Ben, that's been my point, but it's not getting anywhere. You say he was contracted...was he? Have you seen the reciepts? Was he actually paid? Or was there something else like how Lucas arranged financing by allowing 20th Cent to take the movies, but he kept the licensing rights? Did AA sign away rights to the imagery created under UK law? Was LFL even bothering with that? It was Mollo (I think) who said he hired AA...so did LFL even know about AA?

You talk about being contracted...there are protections and understandings *both* ways and the fact is we just don't know the facts involved. But again, my comments are moot as you have made up your mind, and I don't happen to agree.

My comment about who you hang out with is in regards to yours about giving benefit of the doubt. I have told you some things about some people and yet, to my knowledge, you still freely and actively associate with them giving them benefit of the doubt. And I'm just saying to you, as you said to me, you could be wrong about giving benefit of the doubt too.

[snapback]1158236[/snapback]​

Mike once again lets use some logic here if I ask you to make some things for me and I pay you. Do you think I am expecting you to go ahead and make and start making money off my ideas. I mean I trusted you to make my stuff. If things were so cool why didn't AA contact LFL and let them know what he was doing? And what about the issue of the imperial cog we know for a fact AA didn't design that.

Back to the benefit of a doubt. Mike I personally believe if I was running some questionable operation. I personally believe you wouldnt see what I was doing wrong either and defend me. I have seen you do this too many times. Just because AA worked on star wars doesn't make him above the law. Why isnt everyone else that worked on the movie doing the same thing?

Once again lets revisit the facts.

We have the letter from AA finally admitting to reworking the moulds. Something that was disputed before.

AA did in fact use a recast MR stand which I know you don't think is a big deal but speaks volumes.

And now what about the allegations of the recast armor.

[snapback]1158369[/snapback]​

[/b]

As I said, this is getting us nowhere and a complete waste of time.

 

[vaderdarth]

The wording may not be 100% but the meaning is still true. AA is either guilty of what LFL claims he is, or he's innocent of their accusations. Lots of spelling and grammatical corrections in this thread. He might not be pronounced innocent or guilty in court, but the end result (him losing everything or not) is the same. Semantics won't matter if they take the guy's house.

The bottom line is: It will be decided in a court...........not here. Why should we speculate? Does it change anything until it's over? No.

What can we do until then? Wait and watch.

What can we do when it's all done? Hopefully move beyond the discussion altogether.

 

[gavidoc]

Mikey,

No offense intended but your last response to Darby is nothing but a cop out. What he's asking has nothing to do with AA. Just a question for you to answer in a hypothetical manner.

Based on some of your posts in past threads, I'd say you like dabbling in the hypothetical. Why not answer it?

And please, no cop out answer to me as you did earlier.

 

[vaderdarth]

Guys, the question sounds pretty silly to me. It's "hypothetically" still a waste of time in my book. Let the courts decide and stop trying to drag the answers you want to hear out of people who don't agree with your views.

When you say "we" concerning the "evidence" about the case against AA.........it sounds alot like you are on the legal team. If you are on the LFL legal team, save us all the trouble and show us whatcha got............otherwise, can the legal stuff so we can hear it from the courts.

Mike is right, the insistence of some of the Anti-AA folks to agree with their viewpoint whether you REALLY agree or not is stale and tiring. Either accept that some people just don't share your views about this stuff or keep on beating your heads against the same wall. Just because you scream the same theories a bit louder each successive time, won't make anyone change their minds about what you are trying to sell them. It's okay if they don't agree with you. You won't die if they continue to disagree with you. They won't die if they continue to disagree with you.

Let it go. Everything that can be said has been said. Mike's saying: why hash it all out again???

World ain't gonna end based on the outcome of this LFL/AA stuff.

We've seen the armor ourselves side by side with a GF suit. I hope to see it in person beside my GF suit. I'd like to draw my own conclusions if it's okay with everyone.......and even if it ain't. From what I can see, I'm satisfied with my findings. Personally I like what I am seeing. I'm holding off on a final decision, but I see enough "details" that tell me what I believe about the suit is still true. If I change my mind one day.........so be it. It's not your job to change my mind. It's not my job to make you feel warm and squishy.

Let's wait this out and see what happens.