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

#41 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:51 AM

It does not look like a bad suit. Space Odyssey had bad suits. Original Planet of the Apes had bad
suits in comparison. Remember, at least one of the first scientists that viewed the film stated (paraphrasing) that he found it equally
difficult to consider it fake as well as real.
  • 0

#42 NavySEAL

NavySEAL

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 80 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:02 AM

I am a cowboy, horses,ropes, etc. A long time ago some stirrups were made out of low carbon steel and would deform if a horse fell on one. We did not use them (cheap stirrups) because of the danger of having a foot caught should the horse fall.
Are there pictures of the bent stirrup? Does it match the other one on the saddle?
NS
  • 1

#43 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:16 AM

Replying on topic..I think it is an odd thing to state..does sound contrived. Is it simple
embellishment? I have no idea. Yes the apparent contradiction with BG's account is troubling.
Does it add weight to the hoax side? Perhaps.
  • 0

#44 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:17 AM

No pictures that I know of, NS. Has anyone asked Al Hodgson about it yet?
  • 0

#45 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,034 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:12 PM

If Patty looked like a bad suit we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now and the film wouldn't have stood the test of time. Of course people who take the time to actually study it are going to have stronger opinions- whether for or against it.

The Marx suits are good examples of bad suits. Nobody was convinced or cared enough about them to last much more than a magazine article.

On the topic of the stirrup I think it was probably just an embellishment by Roger. It doesn't mean it was a hoax- a lot of guys embellish stories because they want to project themselves a certain way. I have a brother in law that embellishes all of his stories. It doesn't mean he's lying about the whole event, it only means he has this manly image of himself that he's always trying to project. He would never tell us that he lost his balance and fell off his boat, instead he would say his boat overturned in raging rapids.

Roger saying his horse pinned him on the ground and bent the stirrup, might in reality be Roger catching his foot on the stirrup as he dismounted and nosedived to the ground.

Edited by roguefooter, 11 February 2012 - 12:42 PM.

  • 1

#46 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

My uncle used to say, "Never let the truth interfere with a good story." He wasn't even a reporter.



<fixed typo>

Edited by LAL, 11 February 2012 - 03:48 PM.

  • 0

#47 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 01:36 PM

Agreed. We don't know whether Gimlin was mistaken or whether it was embellishment. But if it was, then why would Gimlin contradict Roger? That doesn't make any sense. All Gimlin had to do was play dumb and not comment. Who would have known any different? There was absolutely no reason for Gimlin to have contradicted Roger and every reason for him not to. That is, unless Gimlin was just telling like it was..cuz Roger tended to spice it up being the showman that he was.

I wonder what the likelihood that Roger would have embellished regardless if the PGF was a hoax or not? If you think he was a chronic embellisher, then it's pointless to speculate whether a bent stirrup is a red flag.

Edited by Gigantofootecus, 11 February 2012 - 01:46 PM.

  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#48 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:31 PM

...

Roger saying his horse pinned him on the ground and bent the stirrup, might in reality be Roger catching his foot on the stirrup as he dismounted and nosedived to the ground.

...

I wonder what the likelihood that Roger would have embellished regardless if the PGF was a hoax or not? If you think he was a chronic embellisher, then it's pointless to speculate whether a bent stirrup is a red flag.


With all due respect, this is why I'm somewhat of a stickler for references, quotes, documentation. In Kit's post, and in subsequent posts, we never have Patterson using the words bent, crushed or pinned. Much of this "embellishment" we're talking about is based on things Patterson isn't quoted as having ever said. The original post/poll is a red herring, straw man argument. They are arguments not based on what Roger has actually said (at least not as quoted in the thread).

Edited by Ace, 11 February 2012 - 02:36 PM.

  • 1
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#49 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,248 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:35 PM

If it was a really bad suit the issue would have been settled a few decades ago. Go on youtube and bring up Butchie The Kid's stuff. There's a bad suit. Bring up Blevins there's another really bad suit. In fact each and every Bigfoot video that actually shows any kind of detail in good lighting looks like a bad suit. Please skeptics show us a Bigfoot video that looks unlike a bad suit. The world awaits and waits and waits and waits.........
  • 0

#50 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:38 PM

With all due respect, this is why I'm somewhat of a stickler for references, quotes, documentation. In Kit's post, and in subsequent posts, we never have Patterson using the words bent, crushed or pinned. Much of this "embellishment" we're talking about is based on things Patterson isn't quoted as having ever said. The original post/poll is a red herring, straw man argument. They are arguments not based on what Roger has actually said (at least not as quoted in the thread).

Ace, I hate to use the term "fail,' especially towards one of your posts, so I will not apply it here, but I guess you didn't read the original post. :cool: as in #1.
you may want to use this image: Posted Image

ditto for whoever bumped your post.
p.

Edited by parnassus, 11 February 2012 - 04:47 PM.

  • 0
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.

#51 Romano

Romano

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 417 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:07 PM

According to LAL's post #30, Bob is adamant that Roger's horse did not fall down: Gimlin: "No, no his horse never did fall down. No." Neither does he mentions seeing a bent stirrup.

If we take Roger at his, exact words, as Ace suggests, "My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.", there are a couple of problems. If the stirrup was completely flattened with Roger's foot caught in it, then Roger's foot would have been crushed, literally, at least where the stirrup would have collapsed around his foot. Additionally, if, the stirrup had been completely flattened with Rogers foot caught in it, then, Roger would have had a problem extricating his foot from the stirrup. That would have caused additional problems for Roger.

Therefore, since Bob says, no,no,no, Roger's horse did not fall, and Roger's exact words concerning his account of what happened could not have happened, as he recounts them, I voted for option #3: "This is what hoaxers do..."
  • 0

#52 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:30 PM

Agreed. We don't know whether Gimlin was mistaken or whether it was embellishment. But if it was, then why would Gimlin contradict Roger? That doesn't make any sense. All Gimlin had to do was play dumb and not comment. Who would have known any different? There was absolutely no reason for Gimlin to have contradicted Roger and every reason for him not to. That is, unless Gimlin was just telling like it was..cuz Roger tended to spice it up being the showman that he was.

I wonder what the likelihood that Roger would have embellished regardless if the PGF was a hoax or not? If you think he was a chronic embellisher, then it's pointless to speculate whether a bent stirrup is a red flag.

G.
as I outlined in my earlier post, Gimlin could not have possibly missed all of the falling down action and all the evidence that it happened, not to mention Patterson's subsequent descriptions of it, if it really happened. Therefore, one of them lied. Gimln or Patterson.

I think that Gimlin has always wanted to tell the truth about Patterson and the film, partly because he was so incensed by the lies Patterson told about the fake Gimlin.

If Patterson had really encountered the greatest zoological discovery of the twentieth century, in the company of a witness, and had casts, a trackway, and probably something on film, I wouldn't think he'd be lying about a stirrup.

"Pointless?" I guess I'm hearing (once again) that you don't want to hear any more about Patterson hoaxing. But that's what's being discussed here. Your posting here makes me think you believe the discussion isn't pointless. I can usually tell when a thread is producing some material that makes the hoax more likely, because proponents start making the sort of remarks I'm starting to hear.

p.

Edited by parnassus, 11 February 2012 - 05:32 PM.

  • 0
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.

#53 Kooch

Kooch

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 76 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

G.
as I outlined in my earlier post, Gimlin could not have possibly missed all of the falling down action and all the evidence that it happened, not to mention Patterson's subsequent descriptions of it, if it really happened. Therefore, one of them lied. Gimln or Patterson.

I think that Gimlin has always wanted to tell the truth about Patterson and the film, partly because he was so incensed by the lies Patterson told about the fake Gimlin.

If Patterson had really encountered the greatest zoological discovery of the twentieth century, in the company of a witness, and had casts, a trackway, and probably something on film, I wouldn't think he'd be lying about a stirrup.

"Pointless?" I guess I'm hearing (once again) that you don't want to hear any more about Patterson hoaxing. But that's what's being discussed here. Your posting here makes me think you believe the discussion isn't pointless. I can usually tell whena thread is producing some material that makes the hoax more likely, because proponents start making the sort of remarks I'm starting to hear.

p.

Which forum is this thread in?


  • 0

#54 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,394 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

If I were going to vote...which I'm not....I'd vote for Option #5...which isn't currently available..."It doesn't matter". :)


Nice choice for your avatar, Romano! :music:
  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#55 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

I think he was a chronic imbellisher, and what has convinced me of that, is all the stuff I have read here. I am also convinced that despite them both being somewhat charismatic in their own ways, they are not mentally capable of pulling off this hoax. I think neither one of them could tell the exact same story twice,because they liked to embellish a fair bit. I also think because of this they are subject to suggestion at times. In my humble opinion, that is why it will always come back to the film.

We have all met,and dealt with, people just like them.

Edited by JohnC, 11 February 2012 - 05:41 PM.

  • 0

#56 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:50 PM

G.
as I outlined in my earlier post, Gimlin could not have possibly missed all of the falling down action and all the evidence that it happened, not to mention Patterson's subsequent descriptions of it, if it really happened. Therefore, one of them lied. Gimln or Patterson.

This is about whether Gimlin was mistaken or Roger was an embellisher. Lying is not an indictment.

I think that Gimlin has always wanted to tell the truth about Patterson and the film, partly because he was so incensed by the lies Patterson told about the fake Gimlin.

Huh? This is wack.

If Patterson had really encountered the greatest zoological discovery of the twentieth century, in the company of a witness, and had casts, a trackway, and probably something on film, I wouldn't think he'd be lying about a stirrup.

That's because you don't understand Roger Patterson. Not surprising.

"Pointless?" I guess I'm hearing (once again) that you don't want to hear any more about Patterson hoaxing. But that's what's being discussed here. Your posting here makes me think you believe the discussion isn't pointless. I can usually tell when a thread is producing some material that makes the hoax more likely, because proponents start making the sort of remarks I'm starting to hear.

You are really lousy at reading me and/or getting the gist, IMO. It is pointless because if Roger was a chronic embellisher, hoax or otherwise, then you can't conclude anything. Capisce?
  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#57 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:55 PM

Ace, I hate to use the term "fail,' especially towards one of your posts, so I will not apply it here, but I guess you didn't read the original post. :cool: as in #1...
p.


I don't understand your post. Can you please point out why you quoted me and then posted the above? In post #1 was Roger Paterson quoted as using bent, crushed, trapped or pinned?
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#58 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:29 PM

I did not notice this before and Ace does have a point. In the newspaper clip at the beginning of
post #1 RP said his horse fell on him completely flattening a stirrup with his foot caught in it.

Then later in Kitakaze's post referencing the Jack Webster interview Kit alludes to Roger getting
pinned when Roger only states that he fell with his horse..no mention of being pinned or anything
about a flattened stirrup either. So Roger contradicts himself here and may be another indication
Roger's tendency to embellish. He did say he was under his horse but that,imo, does not mean he
was pinned.
  • 0

#59 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:05 PM

Roger as quoted in the Times-Standard article:

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."


http://www.bigfooten...es/firstpgf.htm

Roger in the Webster interview:

"R: All of a sudden I caught something out of, glimpsed, out of the corner of my eye, and my horse immediately reared on me and I was, I tried to pull him down and at this instant after I seen the object to the side I wasn't able to see it again for a little bit. My horse fell with me, I probably pulled him half over, and as he got up I was able to get up and control him until I went around the other side and got the camera out of the saddle bag and I turned my horse loose, and was able to start shooting and I yelled.

W: Now just a minute, you turned your horse - you got off your horse and turned it loose.

R: Right. Well, my horse was no where-I was already off my horse, I was on the ground underneath him.

W: Okay, you got your camera, turned your horse loose.

R: Right."


http://www.bigfooten...iopatterson.htm

He doesn't mention the stirrup in the radio interview but where's the contradiction? Bob Gimlin said nothing at the time. Roger corrected him on the length of the arms.

Anyone here ever get their tongue tangled in their eye teeth?

Murphy points out that it's unlikely Roger would have "sprung" this on Gimlin. If it were part of a hoax scheme their stories should have matched.

Bigfoot Film Journal, page 39.

I think it's likely Bob Gimlin didn't see it or it didn't register. The mind can only handle so much when something unexpected is happening.


<adjusted font size>

Edited by LAL, 11 February 2012 - 09:07 PM.

  • 0

#60 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:23 PM

Obviously, this horse goes all the way over. For a horse to rear and fall can mean many things, positions, etc. I would think even after the dismount, but before the flip, the rider could consider himself under the horse. He also could if he was on the bank of a creek/river and the terrain were of various heights. As the rider kicks his leg around, his foot in the stirrup would flatten (turn 90-degrees) relative to the horse or ground, depending on how the horse falls (or how much/far it falls). The stirrup hangs, meaning it moves and doesn't have to be completely under (nearest the underside) the horse, but can be along it's side or even near the saddle. The horse doesn't have to flip, but can almost sit, roll to any part of it's side, etc.


  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit







0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users