Jump to content


Photo

Roger Patterson's Bent Stirrup.


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

Poll: Roger Patterson's Bent Stirrup. (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Was the bent stirrup Roger Patterson produced for Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy on Oct. 20, 1967 a dramatic prop for a falsified event or was his foot really crushed under his horse and Gimlin was wrong about the maneuver he says Roger dismounted with?

  1. Yes, I think the bent stirrup was a prop, Roger did it himself, and he made up the story to make his encounter seem more harrowing for Hodgson and McCoy. (2 votes [8.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

  2. No, I think Gimlin is wrong about Roger's agile one-handed dismount and camera extraction and didn't notice the bent stirrup and limp at all because of the excitement all that day. Roger really did have his foot and stirrup crushed. (4 votes [17.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.39%

  3. This is what hoaxers do. They make up stuff like this to psyche up the listener and get them involved in the illusion they are creating. Roger's foot and stirrup being crushed wasn't any more real than Patty Bigfoot. (11 votes [47.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.83%

  4. I am undecided. (6 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:22 PM

If I saw a sasquatch standin' infront of me, I'm not goin' ta be lookin' any where else but at it. A horse infront of me could could eat the rider that was on it, an I'd likely never see it.

Pat...
  • 2

#22 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 596 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:38 PM

I would be asking my partner why in the hell he was looking at me and my horse when he was supposed to be watching the threat with his rifle.
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

...If it wasn't documented and the document available for review....it did't happen.

#23 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 808 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:06 PM

kit no matter how clear you make it this was a hoax, and even though it is obviously a hoax, you will never convince the die hard believers


No matter how clear this can be shown that it is not a hoax, and even though it cannot be recreated, you will never convince the die hard skeptic.
  • 1

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#24 JDL

JDL

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,615 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:48 PM

Kit, I understand the intellectual component of the argument. It's the level of vehemence that takes me aback, and what I don't understand.
  • 1
For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

#25 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,240 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 06:16 PM

If I saw a sasquatch standin' infront of me, I'm not goin' ta be lookin' any where else but at it. A horse infront of me could could eat the rider that was on it, an I'd likely never see it.

Pat...


:declare: too funny!

The new forum software has some pretty cool emoticons. Thanks, BFF Team! : B
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#26 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 06:39 PM

If trying to show a hoax this is not going to do it. I can see Roger embellishing. I can see
BG not getting it right ..your not going to get there from here.

Edited by Thickfoot, 09 February 2012 - 06:47 PM.

  • 0

#27 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:21 PM

I would be asking my partner why in the hell he was looking at me and my horse when he was supposed to be watching the threat with his rifle.


I don't buy the idea that the first glimpse of a brown "something" 120 feet away would prevent Gimlin from even noticing a horse and rider falling directly in front of him, with a trapped and injured foot and a bent stirrup. But there is more to it than he believes/she believes:

there is more to this. Gimlin's stance is NOT that he didn't see it. His stance is that it didn't happen; that something else happened, not what Patterson described. There is a world of difference there. To say that Gimlin just didn't see what Patterson was doing flies in the face not just of common sense, but also flies in the face of what Gimlin has said; he says he noticed, but what he noticed was not what Patterson described. It's not kitakaze you're aguing with, it's Gimlin!

Secondly, Gimlin was around Patterson for the next 30 some hours, and then intermittently after that. If one wishes to believe the idea that it happened but Gimlin didn't notice, then one also has to believe that Patterson never was able to convince Gimlin that it happened. That is, Patterson didn't complain about his ankle, he didn't suddenly have a limp that he hadn't had previously, he never took showed the stirrup to Bob and said, "look at this!" and explained to Bob that while Bob (acccording to this theory) was gawking at the monster, Roger and his horse went to earth, with resulting damage to man and equipment. Further, one would have to believe that Roger and Bob never got around to discussing in camp or in the truck or anywhere, what happened when they first saw the creature, in all that time. And, one would have to believe that Bob never saw Roger even take the stirrup off his saddle and try to bend it back or replace it with a spare, then or anytime afterwards. In sum, Patterson was never able by convince Gimlin that Gimlin had not seen what Gimlin saw, even (supposedly) with the indisputable physical evidence.


The "Gimlin didn't notice" idea is one that was manufactured by apologists. It doesn't hold water. It flies in the face of common sense and logic and human nature. I can't say it's a non-starter, because someone started it. But it's a non-finisher.

imho.

I could be wrong. Par exemple, I thought Romney would cruise. Boy, was that wrong.
  • 1
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#28 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:43 PM

:declare: too funny!

The new forum software has some pretty cool emoticons. Thanks, BFF Team! : B

xspider1,

Pretty cool indeed !

:drinks:
Cheers !

Pat...
  • 0

#29 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:44 PM

Did Patterson say the stirrup was bent? I notice you say it was bent a couple times, but I didn't see any reference to Patterson directly saying this. Would Gimlin have noticed if the stirrup was flattened (ie. turned flat, 90-degrees) against the earth or animal, but not bent? Would Patterson need to straighten or replace it? Would he have cause to say "look at this"? Would he discuss it further or attempt to change Gimlins mind or understanding of the events? If you replace Patterson's own words with bend, bent, crush, crushed you have a very different scenario than can be infered from his own words. Logical inferences or conclusions change if you don't use the participant's own words. If you are willing to change the words, and possibly the meaning of what someone says, why not just throw common sense and logic and human nature out the window?

I don't know how many horsemen we have in the group, but if you were dismounting, and the animal was being half-pulled over would your foot turn at all in the strirrup and cause it to flatten as the animal fell?

BTW, I'm not saying I know the answers, or that your (collective you) conclusions are incorrect; however, I believe the way you get to the conclusions are using flawed logic.
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#30 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:55 PM

Did Bob Gimlin even discuss Roger's dismount for the record before 1992?

"There was a fallen tree and as we came around it there was this creature standing by the creek. That’s when everything started happening. The horses started jumping around, raising the devil and spooking from this creature. Roger, well his horse was rearing up and jumping around. . .he slid off him, got his camera out of the saddle bags and started trying to get pictures of this creature as it was walking away. "

And:

"Green: What exactly did the horses do?
Gimlin: Well Roger was in the front and his horse tried to spin around and come back. I was riding behind him on the big horse leading the pack horse along. My horse was kind of spooky but not near as bad as Roger’s horse. Roger’s horse was a spooky little horse. He was a young horse of course. The horse I was riding was an older cow horse, been roped on and used for a lot of things. Roger’s horse threw all kinds of fits and when Roger got off the horse, he ran off and the pack horse jerked free from me and ran off back down the way we came.
Green: Did Roger’s horse buck?
Gimlin: No, it never did buck, just reared and jumped all around. His horse was in front of me and of course I wasn’t looking straight at him all the time. This all happened in a couple of heart beats you know. It happened fast!
Green: But then Roger’s horse didn’t go down?
Gimlin: No. It didn’t fall down, just reared up is all.
Green: Because this has been said since [inaudible] …you know that Roger’s horse fell down…?
Gimlin: No, no his horse never did fall down. No.
Green: Okay, that’s interesting. So did he get the camera while he was still on the horse?
Gimlin: Yes, while he was stepping down off the horse. Umm, a lot of people have asked me about that and they probably don’t realize the agility that Roger had. He was a tremendous athlete. Roger had tremendous agility! He had been a rodeo rider, he did gymnastics and this wasn’t a full size horse Roger was riding either. It was a pony, a small horse."

Edited by LAL, 10 February 2012 - 04:56 PM.

  • 0

#31 Bipedal Ape

Bipedal Ape

    Bukwas

  • Banned
  • 361 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

No matter how clear this can be shown that it is not a hoax, and even though it cannot be recreated, you will never convince the die hard skeptic.


OK where has it been clearly shown that this is not a hoax? And no drawing lines on a picture is not proof.
  • 2
"A lot of little maybes add up to one probably"

"I do think theres a squatch in these woods"

"Its inexplicable why things go wrong so often with electonics while squatches are around..... he had a chance to document a sasquatch and when he hit record the whole thing fries"

#32 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:00 PM

If the PGF was an obvious hoax there would not be the BFF with however many threads dedicated
to it. The old BFF used to have Freeman and Memorial Day threads dedicated to them but no
longer here..why? Because most have concluded they don't merit the bandwidth. The PGF does.
  • 0

#33 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:08 PM

Or the PGF has a much more interesting backstory. There's more to munch over.
  • 0

#34 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:16 PM

Or the PGF has a much more interesting backstory. There's more to munch over.

This is true...makes me wonder..40+years and no movie..
  • 0

#35 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:40 PM

"Inexpensive stirrups may be made of nickel, which can easily bend or break and should be avoided." Wikipedia
  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#36 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 596 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:51 PM

I still want to know who saw a bent stirrup. If it isn't cited, it isn't documented, it didn't occur.
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

...If it wasn't documented and the document available for review....it did't happen.

#37 Wheellug

Wheellug

    Chiye-tanka

  • Sésquac
  • 808 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:01 PM

OK where has it been clearly shown that this is not a hoax? And no drawing lines on a picture is not proof.

Conversely, where has it been clearly shown that it is a hoax? No where, hence the continuing discussion to this very day.
  • 0

If it wasn't documented, it didn't happen.

 


#38 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:04 PM

The film itself would have been more than sufficient to hold attention. Bent stirrup is gross overkill that could have attracted more hoax questions than it decoyed. Yeah the horse fell on Roger and bent the stirrup. Roger and horse would have been clear of each other and on their feet in seconds. Being a horseman Roger would not have been unnerved by it. I sense many many straws are being grasped by the skeptic community about this film.
  • 0

#39 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:36 PM

I don't feel like I'm grasping at straws :sword:
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#40 Bipedal Ape

Bipedal Ape

    Bukwas

  • Banned
  • 361 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:36 AM

Conversely, where has it been clearly shown that it is a hoax? No where, hence the continuing discussion to this very day.


Just look at the back story, whos involved, and the fact it was filmed by someone actualy looking for bigfoot. Pretty convenient. Also just look at the film it just looks like a really bad suit.
  • 0
"A lot of little maybes add up to one probably"

"I do think theres a squatch in these woods"

"Its inexplicable why things go wrong so often with electonics while squatches are around..... he had a chance to document a sasquatch and when he hit record the whole thing fries"




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users