Top Gear on 60 Minutes

Great editing and interview; the usual I expect from 60 minutes. Wilman in the overtime interview had me laughing hard.
 
narf said:
Actually, that is exactly the way it works. You claim they repeatedly tell lies, so you need to support your claim with evidence.
Click to expand...

I have noted an almost complete disconnect between a) what the hosts claim (in their voiceovers) is happening, and b) what you actually see happen on tape.

But OK, to put it your terms . . .

My "claim": There is no reason to believe there was any attack.
My evidence: There is no footage of any attack despite the presence of multiple cameras under the complete control of TG, present for the specific purpose of capturing such footage.

TG's claim: There was an attack.
TG's evidence: "We became a radio show." Oh well . . .


Vette Boss said:
Listen mate, when someone starts attacking you, the last thing you do is stay around to see what else will happen. You get out of there.
Click to expand...

That's cool; just show us the "start" of the attack then. Like, the first rock or two. Or maybe the attackers, about to attack. Maybe someone picking up a rock. I noticed Hammond made a new claim that some guy was "counting down from 10" or whatever, so there should have been a few seconds of time to get a brief glimpse of him. Point him out in footage if you don't mind. Oh wait, there's no footage whatsoever of him, or any of the other claimed attackers either, even well before the attack? Imagine that.

We're supposed to believe that none of the cameras were in a position to get any of the above? Not even the one across the street? Riiiight. The "evidence" they present is a sad joke, and suspect most of you really do know it. You aren't really this gullible.

But in case you really are, prepare to have your mind blown by this video of amazing really-did-happen phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8vl8zcGV3I

It's probably real since I think, partly, you can tell because the coverage is not great.. You can barely see or make out anything (but at least it's not a TG-style black screen).
 
Last edited:
good segments on 60 minutes! certainly it'll help with viewer rating on TGA...
 
kunedog said:
My "claim": There is no reason to believe there was any attack.
My evidence: There is no footage of any attack despite the presence of multiple cameras under the complete control of TG, present for the specific purpose of capturing such footage.
Click to expand...

Why is there no footage? Because the crew had to run away, too!

Think about it. The TG boys like to ham some things up for the camera. If this were "staged", they would've done the same thing here by prolonging the segment, not to mention we'd also hear about the woman and the trucks full of rednecks or whatever being paid off for their efforts.

TG's claim: There was an attack.
TG's evidence: "We became a radio show." Oh well . . .
Click to expand...

Because they were driving away and had to turn the cameras off momentarily and could only communicate by walkie-talkie!

I noticed Hammond made a new claim that some guy was "counting down from 10" or whatever, so there should have been a few seconds of time to get a brief glimpse of him. Point him out in footage if you don't mind. Oh wait, there's no footage whatsoever of him, or any of the other claimed attackers either, even well before the attack? Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Not really. Richard mentions it in Or Is That Just Me?, too. Practically an entire chapter of it is devoted to whether or not what happened in Alabama actually happened. (Summary: Yes. It did.)

We're supposed to believe that none of the cameras were in a position to get any of the above? Not even the one across the street? Riiiight. The "evidence" they present is a sad joke, and suspect most of you really do know it. You aren't really this gullible.
Click to expand...

And you were there and can describe what really went down that day in precise detail, better than Jeremy, James, or Richard -- who really were there -- can? Riiiiight.
 
And you were there and can describe what really went down that day in precise detail, better than Jeremy, James, or Richard -- who really were there -- can? Riiiiight.
Click to expand...

Maybe he WAS there.............. :whistle:



:think:
 
kunedog said:
That's hardly the way it works; I'm not the one claiming something happened. Why don't TG put up some evidence to support their claims? They're the ones making them.

They had a complete, professional film crew on site, yet failed to produce a single second of footage of someone attacking them (why else does a camera crew exist?). The only "evidence" they've produced are some voiceovers and sound effects; I recommend you watch the segment again if you haven't yet realized this. If there's better footage (i.e. evidence) they withheld for some inexplicable reason, then they've had 3 years since to release it. Hell, this 60 Minutes ep would've been a great opportunity. Instead, there's Wilman essentially saying that you can totally tell it's real because they were amazingly unable to film anything. Seriously, dude? I doubt a UFO hoaxer would have the balls to say something so lame.
Click to expand...
So, I guess when you've got a pickup full of people with guns and rocks being tossed at you, make sure you do a piece to camera to prove it's all real before you run away, all right everybody? :lol:

Actually, no, kunedog. You're the one making this kind of accusation - the burden of proof is on *you*. I think you're the only one here who's sounding like a conspiracy theorist, not Wilman, for pete's sake.

Anyway - this discussion has been harped on probably a thousand times and is old hat. I liked the segment, even if there was nothing new. It may have brought an awareness of the show to a whole new demographic, which is a good thing!
 
kunedog said:
I have noted an almost complete disconnect between a) what the hosts claim (in their voiceovers) is happening, and b) what you actually see happen on tape.

But OK, to put it your terms . . .

My "claim": There is no reason to believe there was any attack.
My evidence: There is no footage of any attack despite the presence of multiple cameras under the complete control of TG, present for the specific purpose of capturing such footage.

TG's claim: There was an attack.
TG's evidence: "We became a radio show." Oh well . . .




That's cool; just show us the "start" of the attack then. Like, the first rock or two. Or maybe the attackers, about to attack. Maybe someone picking up a rock. I noticed Hammond made a new claim that some guy was "counting down from 10" or whatever, so there should have been a few seconds of time to get a brief glimpse of him. Point him out in footage if you don't mind. Oh wait, there's no footage whatsoever of him, or any of the other claimed attackers either, even well before the attack? Imagine that.

We're supposed to believe that none of the cameras were in a position to get any of the above? Not even the one across the street? Riiiight. The "evidence" they present is a sad joke, and suspect most of you really do know it. You aren't really this gullible.

But in case you really are, prepare to have your mind blown by this video of amazing really-did-happen phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8vl8zcGV3I

It's probably real since I think, partly, you can tell because the coverage is not great.. You can barely see or make out anything (but at least it's not a TG-style black screen).
Click to expand...

Hmmm... actually at minute 12.38 from the video... you could definitely hear rocks being thrown at "something" and loud voice yelling over something from somebody... turn up the speakers maybe? Althou that being said, it wouldn't be a direct counter against what you claimed it to be "staged" or not... so, that's up to your definition.. exactly the same; if u wan to blif if ghost exists.. or not.. :)
 
It wasn't meant to give any new info to a group of Top Gear geeks. The collective FG knowledge about Top Gear is ginormous.
 
narf said:
It wasn't meant to give any new info to a group of Top Gear geeks. The collective FG knowledge about Top Gear is ginormous.
Click to expand...
This is true. I think it'd take years to assemble the amount of collective knowledge stored here, nevermind a 15 minute tv segment!
 
shellygrrl said:
Why is there no footage? Because the crew had to run away, too!
Click to expand...

So they're there at (or across the road from) the station, cameras rolling. What happened to make them finally decide to pack up and leave, and why isn't that moment on film? Again, there is no footage whatsoever of anyone attacking or threatening them, or even starting to. None at all. If the story is that things "turned ugly," causing them to decide to cut and run, then we should see something of that. Instead there's . . . just nothing.


shellygrrl said:
Think about it. The TG boys like to ham some things up for the camera. If this were "staged", they would've done the same thing here by prolonging the segment, not to mention we'd also hear about the woman and the trucks full of rednecks or whatever being paid off for their efforts.
Click to expand...

What "efforts" were those, exactly? Again, no one at the gas station attacked or threatened them. Watch the segment and you'll see they did nothing worth faking.


shellygrrl said:
Not really. Richard mentions it in Or Is That Just Me?, too. Practically an entire chapter of it is devoted to whether or not what happened in Alabama actually happened. (Summary: Yes. It did.)
Click to expand...

And, also, according to Hammond's voiceover, it happened. Well, duh. His book adds absolutely nothing to the debate, unless it included a DVD in the back with the nonexist- . . . er, I mean "missing" footage :lol:.



solsticeviolet said:
So, I guess when you've got a pickup full of people with guns and rocks being tossed at you, make sure you do a piece to camera to prove it's all real before you run away, all right everybody? :lol:

Actually, no, kunedog. You're the one making this kind of accusation - the burden of proof is on *you*.
Click to expand...

Oh, now they had guns? I mean, sure, why not, right? There's no evidence despite all the cameras, so I guess anything anyone claims about them is magically true, and it's everyone else's "burden" to prove otherwise. That haunted house show video I posted must have your head spinning; it means ghosts have to be real until someone proves otherwise!


solsticeviolet said:
This is true. I think it'd take years to assemble the amount of collective knowledge stored here, nevermind a 15 minute tv segment!
Click to expand...

Glad to add to it <g>
 
Cool segment.


Re: fake Alabama film - personally I would be MORE inclined to think it was faked has there been footage. I mean, if you are going to fake something like that you would likely take the time to show 'glimpses.'
 
kunedog said:
So they're there at (or across the road from) the station, cameras rolling. What happened to make them finally decide to pack up and leave, and why isn't that moment on film? Again, there is no footage whatsoever of anyone attacking or threatening them, or even starting to. None at all. If the story is that things "turned ugly," causing them to decide to cut and run, then we should see something of that. Instead there's . . . just nothing.

And, also, according to Hammond's voiceover, it happened. Well, duh. His book adds absolutely nothing to the debate, unless it included a DVD in the back with the nonexist- . . . er, I mean "missing" footage :lol:.

Oh, now they had guns? I mean, sure, why not, right? There's no evidence despite all the cameras, so I guess anything anyone claims about them is magically true, and it's everyone else's "burden" to prove otherwise. That haunted house show video I posted must have your head spinning; it means ghosts have to be real until someone proves otherwise!

Glad to add to it <g>
Click to expand...

You didn't see what moment was on film that made them leave? Were you watching a different show from everyone else? What more did you expect to see? Actual rocks hitting their trucks? Would you have preferred them to wait around to get pounded so they could have coverage of this "missing footage" you keep gobbing about? LOL, "missing" footage. Yes, it's a TG conspiracy that has all us fans in the dark! Hey everyone, this person knows "the truth" and we're all just too blind to see that we're all being duped. And... if we are, does it make a difference? Not in my life. I just watch the show and enjoy it and don't like when people come here to "omg educate" us. It doesn't add anything to the discussion (being that it's an issue that is over three years old) and makes things kind of a drag.

There may not have been guns... but there may have been. It may have been that THEY didn't see them either (and maybe even assumed they were there), but we only know what was edited together and what they told us. You don't know any better than the rest of us, but do continue to wank over it!

Yes, you sure showed us. I am left stunned by your powers of insight and observation. Don't you have a hobby or something?

Edit:
Yep, we're fans. That doesn't mean we can't be critical.
Click to expand...
:jawdrop: :shock2: Did everyone here know you could do that? I, for one, was clueless and thought being a fan meant mindless sycophancy. :lmao: That would be why Andy Wilman writes blog posts answering directly much of the criticism that this board expresses in a very LOUD fashion during a new series. (Though FG is not the only place that criticizes, I'm sure.) Do you even go here?
 
Last edited:
Chupacabras said:
Cool segment.


Re: fake Alabama film - personally I would be MORE inclined to think it was faked has there been footage. I mean, if you are going to fake something like that you would likely take the time to show 'glimpses.'
Click to expand...

Agreed. It'd be a pretty poorly done fake.

They were foreigners attempting to piss people off. Not hard to believe that they'd succeed, especially in certain more conservative parts of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top