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. (22 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 [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  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 [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  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. (10 votes [45.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  4. I am undecided. (6 votes [27.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:38 AM

A little musical interlude is in order, methinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f4GpZQk6rw


Posted Image
"Then I saw her face..........now I'm a believer.......not a trace...of doubt in my mind." :russian:

Edited by Kerchak, 20 February 2012 - 08:43 AM.

  • 2
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#122 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:14 PM

You are free to call me a believer if you like. It still doesn't stick and I still don't deal in belief. You have no idea how I've vetted Bob Heironimus. There is no belief when it comes to Bob Heironimus being filmed by Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek. I know for a fact he was. Yes, if you want to see the proof, you will have to wait for a documentary. Belief has no place in my world where Bigfoot is concerned. I simply do not accept what does not have reliable evidence or proof. Show me a specific claim of Bigfoot, I examine it. If it doesn't have reliable evidence, I do not support it. I haven't found one single pice of reliable evidence for Bigfoot yet. It doesn't mean I would reject it if it were to come. I've already specified the three forms I would accept.

Can we please discuss bent stirrups and not what's in my heart or mind or motivations?

kitakaze,

You say you don't deal in belief, yet you dismissed the images of Roger pourin' the plaster simply because you believed his pants an boots were to dry for a man who twice crossed the river. I had asked you multiple times how you were able to ascretain this without even knowin' the elapsed time between the two images bein' filmed. You consatantly go on what you believe to be, I have little problem with it, however, it would be incorrect to say you don't deal in belief.

As for the stirrup, are there any known images of it ? After it was said to have been damaged.

Pat...
  • 0

#123 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,302 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 03:00 PM

kitakaze,

Can I ask what proof or evidence you have of the bent stirrup ? You argue you don't deal in belief, so either you believe Roger's story of it, or you believe he's lyin'. Would that be correct ?

Pat...
  • 0

#124 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:02 PM

It appears that Roger is on record as saying his horse fell down, bent the stirrup, and hurt his foot in the process. That's an event worth noting. It appears that Bob is on record as well, contradicting an event worth noting. Some people think it silly to shine light on this kind of discrepancy, but it's not a small detail. They can't both be right, so someone is getting it wrong. If Patterson simply said it fell down, and Gimlin said it didn't, then you have a difference in opinion of what happened. If Patterson showed people a bent stirrup and said it happened when his horse fell down, that's material evidence to support what he said. Not a difference in opinion. So Patterson either fell down and bent his stirrup, and Gimlin didn't see it, or the horse didn't fall down and he concocted the story for increased drama. One option goes against Gimlin's powers of observation, and the other goes against Patterson's integrity. Instead of ignoring the very uncomfortable situation where one would need to taint the reputation of one or the other of the pair, people really should make a definitive choice; did the horse fall down, bend the stirrup, and Gimlin just didn't see it happen in front of his own eyes, or did Patterson do a bit of fibbing in order to, well, let's not assume too much. Did Paterson fib about the horse falling? One or the other.

I am going with Bob, he's alive and has been very definite with what he says about it. So I think Patterson fibbed about the stirrup.
  • 0
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#125 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:28 AM

Sheesh.

Gimlin:

"Of course I wasn't looking straight at him (Roger) all the time"

No big deal about this. Sometimes people during exciting encounters just don't notice stuff when there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM!!

Capitals in bold FULLY INTENTIONAL to get this salient point fully across.

:tease:

Edited by Kerchak, 02 March 2012 - 03:29 AM.

  • 1
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#126 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:31 AM

Tontar, why not go with both, since there hasn't been presented any first-hand documentation either of them said the stirrup was bent.
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#127 Transformer

Transformer

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 351 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:12 AM

I have ridden horses for over thirty years in all sorts of terrain. I have had horses fall on me a couple of times and it just comes with the territory. It is beyond question to me that any horse that fell hard enough to bend a metal stirrup with the rider's foot still in it would cause very severe injuries to the foot. The stirrup is not just going to hit the ground and bend because they are very strong. The stirrup is going to twist with all the force of the falling horse's weight and that is going to cause the rider's foot to bend and twist and BREAK. There is no way that such a force can be absobed by the foot without major damage. I have seen it happen and riders who work in dangerous terrain always talk about such injuries and how one must learn to get their foot out and up when the horse starts to fall. That is why an experienced rider always rides with their heel down and foot only part way into the stirrup. That is also the way people are taught to ride by any experienced rider and get yelled at when they don't follow directions.
Here is some proof to my claims. http://www.horsescie...ty-stirrups.php
  • 0
"Frankly, I've never been a big fan of the "gone wackabout" method of research"
BF Sleuth

#128 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:44 PM

Tontar, why not go with both, since there hasn't been presented any first-hand documentation either of them said the stirrup was bent.


Patterson said his stirrup was bent, didn't he? He said his horse fell down on him, didn't he? Patterson says his horse fell down. Gimlin says it didn't.

Transformer, would you say that a horse rearing up and falling down is an event that might go unnoticed by the only other rider on the scene? Is it possible that Patterson's horse fell on him and Gimlin may have missed it? He did say he wasn't looking at him constantly, but he also sounded pretty certain that Patterson's horse did not fall down. Is it possible they both are right? That Patterson did take a fall, maybe marginally bending the stirrup, not so bad that it would destroy Patterson's foot nor poke a hole in the horse, and that Gimlin was looking away at that precise moment?

Gimlin sounds pretty certain the horse didn't fall, and he seems willing to say that it flat out did not fall, even though he may have glanced away at times.
  • 0
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#129 Transformer

Transformer

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 351 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:35 PM

I guess if Mr. Gimlin was totally concentrating on the subject of the film he might not see the horse rear and fall. Or if he did see a real sasquatch he could have blanked out anything else in his memory when he recalls the event. I know people's memory can very tricky so I cannot say one way or the other what Mr. Gimlin may have seen or registered in his mind at the crucial time.
edit to add that I think a person would see what was happening around him because of the instinct to watch your back when scared would have made him hyper vigilent at the time and very much forced to react to any movement around him by looking. Most people that have been surprised by a bear or cougar or rattler when I have been riding with them have an adrenalin rush that makes their head snap around at any slight movement or sound during the scare and for some time after. But like I said I cannot know what goes on in everybody's mind or Mr. Gimlin's.
Think of the force it would take to bend a stirrup even marginally. That would still break anything in the stirrup as it twisted under the horse. One thing I forgot to mention is the damage that it would cause the horse. No horse is going to walk away unharmed from a fall where its body weight bends a stirrup because the stirrup would have to be pushing against the horse as well as the ground. Major deep tissue bruising would occur and a broken rib or two if the stirrup hit the ribcage. A horse person would immediately be able to see the results of the injury to the horse as the horse would show the pain so I cannot see mentioning the bent stirrup without a comment about the injury to the horse as well as the rider.

edit to add italic portion.

Edited by Transformer, 02 March 2012 - 04:43 PM.

  • 0
"Frankly, I've never been a big fan of the "gone wackabout" method of research"
BF Sleuth

#130 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:24 PM

I read the report on accidents and safety stirrups. It sounded to me like under a fall, the stirrup would normally get turned sideways, twisting the rider's foot and breaking it. Not necessarily even sustaining damage to itself. Is that right? The stirrup being strong, seeks the path of least resistance, turns flatter to the ground, torquing the human foot and breaking it, and the stirrup coming out unscathed?
  • 0
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#131 Transformer

Transformer

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 351 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 06:13 PM

You are right in most cases however the bending of the stirrup can occur as a result of the fall and torquing movement if it is on a very hard surface like hard dry ground or pavement or rocks. That is because the horse does not just fall over but is twisting and fighting as it falls. There is no way a person is going to have his foot jammed in a bent stirrup with a horse on him without sufferring severe injury to that foot and injury to his horse.

edited to add that the horse is also not going to lie still after a fall but twist and lunge to get up causing even more damage.

Edited by Transformer, 02 March 2012 - 06:16 PM.

  • 0
"Frankly, I've never been a big fan of the "gone wackabout" method of research"
BF Sleuth

#132 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:42 PM

I read the report on accidents and safety stirrups. It sounded to me like under a fall, the stirrup would normally get turned sideways, twisting the rider's foot and breaking it. Not necessarily even sustaining damage to itself. Is that right? The stirrup being strong, seeks the path of least resistance, turns flatter to the ground, torquing the human foot and breaking it, and the stirrup coming out unscathed?


That is exactly right and exactly my point from the beginning. Patterson never says bent. He says flatten, i.e., taking the path of least resistance, turns flat(ten), torquing the human foot. So, again, based on what Patterson says his horse went over, torqued his foot and that was the extent of it. So, 130-something posts later, Patterson didn't say the stirrup was bent and it was probably like you described.
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit




#133 Tontar

Tontar

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,118 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 09:37 PM

^ Ah, interesting. He never said his stirrup was bent. I'll have to reread the description and see if it sounds like this example, now looking at it that way. Nice work, Ace!

Still, either way, Patterson says his horse fell down, "flattening" his stirrup, hurting his foot, right? Gimlin said to the best of his knowledge the horse didn't fall down? Bent stirrup or not, there's still that discrepancy remaining...
  • 0
Tontar

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
- Monty Python, Argument Clinic

#134 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:06 PM

^

Gimlin:

"Of course I wasn't looking straight at him (Roger) all the time"
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#135 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,480 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:09 PM

That is exactly right and exactly my point from the beginning. Patterson never says bent. He says flatten, i.e., taking the path of least resistance, turns flat(ten), torquing the human foot. So, again, based on what Patterson says his horse went over, torqued his foot and that was the extent of it. So, 130-something posts later, Patterson didn't say the stirrup was bent and it was probably like you described.


That would be your interpretation. If he flattened his stirrup without bending it, he's not going to go to all the trouble of removing it then displaying it to Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy.

Look at my stirrup!

OK, why?

I dunno!



  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#136 Ace!

Ace!

    Skunk Ape

  • Banned
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:51 AM

Yeah Kit, that's my interpretation using the words Patterson used. I could use words he didn't actually say but the interpretation would probably be different still. It'd probably change everyone else's interpretion too ;)
  • 0
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!
Justitia suum cuique distribuit