You're a guy on the internet, I've got the people who were actually there talking about it in interviews, I think I'd rather see real evidence not assumptions based on editorial choices for someone as confident as yourself on this issue I think it is necessary there is no reason what so ever for them to keep up this charade all these years later from books to interviews and newspaper columns since it is well known they stage things and have even gotten self referential about it so what is the motivation the reasoning behind it all it's not like Top Gear would be canceled if they came clean
Talk is cheap (in all those forms). But convincing video (i.e. "real evidence") is near impossible to fake, which is why there is none (and why this guy on the internet gives that fact more weight).
All their other staged stuff is either seamless or done for humor's sake or at the very least appears to be done for a presentable reason.
"Sorry we faked that fire, but we thought it would be funny and no one was ever in danger."
"Sorry we faked that exterior shot, but it really helped the flow of the episode in editing, and it's almost exactly what happened naturally before we had the camera in place."
"Sorry we staged that camper cliff drop, but holy shit it was
awesome."
What the hell would be their excuse for this?
"Sorry we faked that terrifying attempted murder in a tone that stirred genuine fear in many of you, but . . . uh . . . we really hate that region of the world and we wanted to frighten and fool as many people as we could into joining in our bigotry."
If you can't see how admitting the truth would be a major problem for them, I again ask what you would think about a faked attack in Vietnam, India, Botswana, etc.
and your assertion is that it's completely fake not even a little bit real, you won't even budge on the idea that it was probably just a smaller incident which was exaggerated for dramatic effect.
You may not see "Attacking rednecks" but you do see rednecks threatening them to leave ASAP, the footage is misleading in that it shows this pickup full of rednecks on the back but they probably weren't involved in the incident at all what you do see is the woman talking to 2 other guys and then wandering over to shout at a producer maybe the producer or director said "Okay chaps lets get out of here and they ended up being hounded by a pickup truck after they left who knows
Only one person (owner/manager/whatever of the property) confronts them, and the most "threatening" thing she says is a warning not to tear up the parking lot. That is not a "smaller incident," that is NO incident. All violence exists in voiceovers (and your head), not in the footage.
but you weren't there so what the hell do you know the proof is on you.
You're rare. Burden of proof is a pretty big deal, and it makes little sense to say it doesn't rest entirely on Top Gear's shoulders.
Suppose I demanded that you prove the giant panda sitting behind Obama during his speech Tuesday was fake. Isn't step 1 to check the footage (and news reports) to verify there's at least a plausible fake there to be debunked? If there's no appearance (or news) of a panda to begin with (despite all the cameras), then there's no need to search for evidence of fakery.
Fair to say. I don't know how to stop it from coming up in other threads, though.
