- This topic has 85 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I watched his video, didn’t see or hear him mention anyone by name. I could be wrong? There are plenty of people involved in the P/G film over the years who are now “old”. I believe that was part of his very general description. Seems strange to me that people are jumping on the name Gimlin.
Time shares… ?
“My opinion is that- I wouldn’t waste a second on listening to anything the guy had to say…”
I think MK Davis is one of the finest names in this sordid field. He does great work as far as I can tell. I’ve watched plenty of “how to hunt” also, he seems to be coming from a very good place. What’s the problem with finding out the truth?
Can you show me where he mentioned Gimlin by name? Seems a lot of other people are for some reason.
https://youtu.be/sHIfsYGLRnQ time – 4min 58s
If you watch the whole video it is insinuated that the individuals involved in the patty film, could be implicated in a murder and specifically John Green with the Gimlin name next to his.
Why are we jumping on Steve ?
He read a letter sent to him. Does anybody really know what happened in 1967 ?
Except for Bob Gimlin ? Unfortunately I’ve learned not to trust anyone.Thanks for the link!
He’s reading a letter, which someone else penned, anonymously.
Many people have talked about this over the years, I always understood it as P&G arriving late to the scene and another group getting there earlier (after they were tipped off), with a special breed of hunting dogs and high powered rifles. I never thought P&G were a part of that group.
Would love to know!
Stay safe, thanks for the chat. Thank God for podcasts, music and day drinking!
Learn to pick your battle. Let those involved deal with it themselves. We’ll sit back and just watch, look, listen and learn. When the dust clears the last man standing will have some stories to tell.
I want to see all witnesses and deceased parties named as persons of interests and co-named conspirators be deposed under oath.
So, the logic is “that if you are (supposedly) reading someone else’s letter” then the person reading it is exonerated from any blame, really?
What if I read a letter accusing the “How to Bunt” guy of being a child molester? Hey don’t blame me, because I am only reading a letter that (supposedly) someone else wrote, And they have proof! I don’t have proof, but the other guy has proof and the truth will come out! Oh and some of the witnesses are dead, but don’t let that color the facts, as they told their brother-in-laws, neighbors, hair dresser that it was true and that person never lies! Oh, and it’s on the internet, so it must be real!
Wahoo!
All I see is an individual taking advantage of an old story, passive aggressively attacking a well known individual for the sake of promoting a book that is soon to be released.
There is very little logic within the statements or the comments on the videos. Steve proclaims the guilty will speak out and also oh the guilty remain silent… This truth crusade is the biggest load of horse dung in the northern hemisphere, he is either a complete moron or a cunning influencer pulling marketing strings.
My point was in relation to the legal definition of Libel, Defamation and Slander.
It’s definitely a fine line.
But you’d be right in there yourself, near the very same fine line by suggesting Steve wrote the letter himself, “supposedly” in your words. I’m not sure how you’re all knowing about this subject. Do you have special knowledge the rest of us don’t? Otherwise, like Gumshoe said, sit back and relax, see what happens. I’m sure Gimlin’s lawyer will be on it.
I guess the great advantage of instituting legal proceedings against Steve, is there’d have to be a process of discovery for both parties, and we’d soon see who’s telling the truth. Which would also be the case if you were to make up a child molestation scenario.
Stay safe. Have a good one.
Steve could be an accessory. Of course that depends on what Steve knows.
A. Someone aiding in or contributing to the commission or concealment of a felony, e.g. by assisting in planning or encouraging another to commit a crime (an accessory before the fact) or by helping another escape arrest or punishment (an accessory after the fact).
B. An accessory-after-the-fact is someone who assists 1) someone who has committed a crime, 2) after the person has committed the crime, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the crime, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment.
Listen to everything he says.
You can download and convert youtube videos to mp3 or mp4. That way if he takes a video down, a record can be kept.
Here’s how:
There are several websites you can use to convert YouTube videos to MP3. Some examples include Mp3Skull, GenYouTube, Ytmp3.cc, Y2mate.com, Ytdown.cc, Mpgun, and Dlnowsoft.com.
Depending on the YouTube downloader, you might have more options than just MP3, including 3GP, WEBM, MP4, and M4A.
Yeah I agree. I don’t see how it’s slander. If Steve is saying peoples livelihood are threatened by what Steve is doing, then there has to be a bit of truth.
IDKI kind of feel that is a redundent comment. If someones livelihood is affected by alleged statements, true or false, that in my opinion- which is not that of a law professional, would be reason enough for a law suit.
An example continuing from the initial one mentioned. If someone alleged an individual was a pedophile, they lost their job working with children and the claims were never proven, nor in fact true, it doesn’t matter if they are inevitably exonerated. The damage is already done, loss of income as well as the affect on reputation etc may not be repairable. If we are debating semantics over definitions… You understand the connotation of using the word slander.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
