KaanE
Sr Member
And what does that mean? I mean, where do you want to go with that fact? :wacko
Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th - Lucasfilm vs Andrew Ainsworth
- Thread starter Supa troop
- Start date
And what does that mean? I mean, where do you want to go with that fact? :wacko
geordietrooper
Sr Member
they only looked in the kurtz archive because brian informed them of the photo's existence
GINO
Sr Member
Very much so.
Where would this community be if we didn't question AA about his claims?
I was one of many who swallowed his claims in the beginning years ago (some still do to this day).
There is a lot of pride that people carry because they have some sort of loose relationship with some of these people that many times causes them to lose their objectivity.
I do not believe AA sculpted the stormtrooper helmet/armor, but there are a lot of people out there that still do because they feel loyalty to him on some small level.
They want to believe him and support him because he is a 'nice' guy and is viewed as a sort of 'friend'.
All objectivity goes right out the window.
.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
We are in agreement about this. And yes, I would also love to see definitive proof. But without that we have to go by testimony from those who were there... and so far the most trustworthy of those win the argument regarding who sculpted the piece.
There is very little to support the claim of Pemberton being able to sculpt something like the Stormtrooper helmet. I would still like to see his previous work around that time. I don't hold my breath though... as showing the work may easily squash any claims of ownership...
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
All well and good, but the recollections of the actual artists who sculpted things for the film carry much more weight than a man who used to pull ponds and boats for a living before they came to him. People had heard of Brian Muir in the film industry, hence him still having work to this day. We have LFL saying "Yup, Brian did this" or someone else saying so and so did that. At some point, you have to accept others at their word. If enough people say the sky is blue, guess what? It's friggin' blue.
Now, you DO have the point that some of the minutiae is lost on those involved. Hell, there are things that I have done that were memorable to others and when they recount the tale to me, I am lost. It happens. We all get older. This does not mean they were wrong, or that it didn't happen. It means MY memory of it is not so clear. Didn't Prowse say that the face was all black on Vader? This hazy recollection does not diminish his involvement in the production.
Now, you DO have the point that some of the minutiae is lost on those involved. Hell, there are things that I have done that were memorable to others and when they recount the tale to me, I am lost. It happens. We all get older. This does not mean they were wrong, or that it didn't happen. It means MY memory of it is not so clear. Didn't Prowse say that the face was all black on Vader? This hazy recollection does not diminish his involvement in the production.
GINO
Sr Member
I think testimony is a very unreliable element.
Basically it comes down to the character of the one providing it and I think that is a very unreliable foundation on which to build facts.
For example:
Nice guy = truth/credible
Jerk = not truth/not credible
It's unreliable.
.
I am a fan, but am fairly far from being wide-eyed. I am certainly not the sort to swallow people's claims without due consideration.
You say there is no proof outside of (presumably Brian Muir's) testimony, but that is proof enough. It was given under oath (and penalty of perjury) and put to the test in a tribunal of fact.
It has been probed, examined and dissected by experts in the art of finding and exploiting flaws in evidence and undermining credibility. It was assessed by a man of exhaustive experience in the same arcane arts who has been elevated to one of the highest courts in the land after years serving in the lower courts. It passed the test and was accepted by the court.
Unless there is strong evidence showing this testimony was flawed in some way, I am more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you do have such evidence it would be better to present it rather than to cast baseless aspersions.
Failing that, if you are still unwilling to accept evidence good enough for a court of law, I'm not sure what will ever convince you.
There are also those who refuse to believe things purely because they DON'T WANT to believe them.
GINO
Sr Member
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
As is your prerogative. It does not diminish the fact that these people WERE involved and what their roles were in the production. What exactly are you questioning here?
GINO
Sr Member
@dpp1978
It sounds like what you are saying is that if testimony is given under oath, that means it should be treated as fact.
Do you really believe that there haven't been times where testimony has been given in a court of law that was not true? Sometimes the person giving the testimony can outright lie, and sometimes they actually believe what they are saying (but in reality what they are saying could be incorrect).
Testimony by it's own nature is not enough to build facts upon on its own.
.
It sounds like what you are saying is that if testimony is given under oath, that means it should be treated as fact.
Do you really believe that there haven't been times where testimony has been given in a court of law that was not true? Sometimes the person giving the testimony can outright lie, and sometimes they actually believe what they are saying (but in reality what they are saying could be incorrect).
Testimony by it's own nature is not enough to build facts upon on its own.
.
GINO
Sr Member
GINO
Sr Member
Exactly.
Testimony comes down to credibility and that is a VERY unreliable method to determine fact.
.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
This is once again getting into a mindset that seems to be more and more prevalent and one that seems to lean heavily on ubiquitous skepticism. I am all for proving things to the best of one's ability and for not just accepting something as fact because someone of repute claims it to be so. However, it feels like you are looking for an answer you are never going to get. We can't go back in time to witness the events for ourselves. Some who were involved are dead. Others involved have some level of bias to one side or the other... so who do you trust and what do you go on? Throwing out questions like this feel divisive and purposeless unless you have an answer in mind and if you do, then why not post it? Instead of asking these questions which only serve to create doubt, why not post what you actually believe and provide support for it. Any monkey can sit there and ask leading questions that (not-so) subtly undermine the common belief. If you don't believe Brian and Liz played the role that is being presented, why beat around the bush? State what you believe and why you believe it.
GINO
Sr Member
I think for me personally, I would need to see some photographs or some dated documents that support these types of claims. Not people's testimony or recollections.
And you are right, we may never get this type of proof.
But then again, we never thought we'd see a photo of the trooper helmet sculpt.
Who knows what could potentially be unearthed in the future.
.
And you are right, we may never get this type of proof.
But then again, we never thought we'd see a photo of the trooper helmet sculpt.
Who knows what could potentially be unearthed in the future.
.
Indeed, which is why it is thoroughly tested by experts and assessed by an unbiased adjudicator. Solid testimony from a reliable, credible witness is very strong evidence, and is not easily dismissed.
It is of course possible that either party lied (which would be a dangerous allegation to make unsupported by evidence), was mistaken or that the evidence was poorly put across, but it is tested by people trained in spotting these things and exploiting them, and a judge who knows when to disregard them.
When put to the test the judge said of Brian Muir's evidence, "[He] has a good general recollection of the events at the time ...I was able to accept his evidence, including important evidence of timing."
Of AA's he said, "[Various] factors, and other challenges made to his credibility during the case, make me approach Mr Ainsworth's evidence with a great deal of caution."
If forced to choose which party to believe it isn't hard to pick.
Again if you have anything which specifically casts doubt on these events as related, present it rather than cast aspersions. Otherwise all your reservations carry very little probative value one way or another.
ok
i believe AA had no involvment what so ever in Scuplting the Trooper Helmet or Armour, its proven he was just the vac former.
AA is a chancer he saw a means to make money and when he had his color felt had the balls to stand up and say "ok prove i didnt make the molds" others would have possibly crumbled at the thought of having LFL knocking on your door.
The more the arguments rage and the less hard evidence that fails to materalise the more AAs claims become credible and believable ..... in his eyes and those of his fans.
Il admit, hold my hands up and say ive swung from this to that side of the fence over the years but recently all the testimonies from the likes of Brian and long established members here have made me realise that infact AA has chanced his luck found a loop hole and hit the jackpot.
