Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

Yeah, Roger said that they tracked Patty for 3.5 miles before losing her sign on pine needles. That would be a slow process to follow whatever sign was being left and might require dismounting numerous times or even doing the whole tracking event on foot while pulling your horse.

Maybe that lie was supposed to tie in with another lie told about Gimlin being a tracker with Indian ancestry. But then that partnership fell apart and the story didn't work out. The rather monumental tracking excursion bit got dumped from the already-inconsistent narrative. The timeline given doesn't even allow for the hours it would have taken to do the tracking trip and then still do everything else.

Gimlin doesn't talk about the tracking and people who question him at lectures seem to know to avoid that subject. The bent stirrup lie is avoided as well.
 
HarryHenderson said:
And as that's contradiction's long running corollary, one can't bend a stirrup by his horse falling on him. As in it being essentially a physical impossibility. Of course in theory metal stirrups could bend, but in 1968 they weren't using metal stirrups on their western saddles, they had already bent wood (of all things) stirrups. A closer look at any of the clear video of P & G on their horses should show what stirrups they used. Those wood stirrups are basically bullet proof. A fully shod 1,500# horse could bounce up and down on just one of them with all four hooves at once and probably never affect it.

Proving your point, it's just a stupid detail RP made up that he thought gave it credibility (i.e. why would they say a stirrup bent if it didn't actually happen and who would really question it if it didn't) that he could never take back. Gimlin was right, there was no horse rearing or falling or bending going on, but their story had to have some kind of unique, definitive detail and Bob definitely wasn't hired on as creative director. :wink:
Click to expand...

So what bent stirrup was Patterson showing to people then? Patterson was even limping, apparently. What was Patterson's prop stirrup?

https://books.google.com/books?id=0...nepage&q=roger patterson bent stirrup&f=false
 
Most riders use stirrups they like, and have owned for years, just like their boots. Roger may have been using stirrups he’d had forever, or he may have even made his own.
Or, since he was using Bob’s horse he may have bent Bob’s stirrup, which sounds like something he would do.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
He would never show that to a real outdoor person, because they'd laugh at him.
Click to expand...
A "real outdoor person" wouldn't laugh if that person was already a Bigfoot believer. Patterson understood the psychology of Bigfooters and so he only associated with them. Gimlin still does the same thing.
 
William Parcher said:
A "real outdoor person" wouldn't laugh if that person was already a Bigfoot believer. Patterson understood the psychology of Bigfooters and so he only associated with them. Gimlin still does the same thing.
Click to expand...

A real outdoor person, wouldn't be a Bigfoot believer. They might be part of the hoax, but for my point, a 'real outdoor person' doesn't include Bigfoot Believers.
 
LTC8K6 said:
So what bent stirrup was Patterson showing to people then? Patterson was even limping, apparently. What was Patterson's prop stirrup?
Click to expand...
It's funny, I laugh at the board sometimes when people debate endlessly (or it just feels like that) about the tiniest of (mostly inconsequential) details of something and now I seem to be right in there doing just that. I apologize. :xtongue

So anyway, with no picture of him doing it we don't know that he showed anyone anything stirrup-wise, it just says he did. Even if he did show somebody something, who knows what it was from. And he could be limping from the horse falling on him in general, independent of his foot. Or his wife coulda kicked him in the balls the night before.

It's true that bendable metal stirrups do exist and they even make a metal stirrup called a bent stirrup. That they're also called 'stirrups' is their only relation to this though. My contention is (and has been) that considering the kind of saddles they were inevitably using, western saddles, they had stirrups that can't actually be re-bent (and stay re-bent) once they're initially created (as bent wood). They would break long before deforming permanently. Akin to trying to reduce the size of your kitchen sink by squeezing it real hard. That is to say there's ALWAYS been a huge missing piece in this puzzle and it's exactly what you think it is, the so-called bent stirrup. It's because it doesn't exist, just like the beast. :wink:

Drewbot said:
How about this?

Roger is fooling people, so he grabs a cheap metal stirrup from a rocking horse, bends it, and carries it around with him to show the "RUBES" the evidence of the horse falling on him. He would never show that to a real outdoor person, because they'd laugh at him.

Here is the exact stirrup I'm thinking of.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-19...m=152871489628&_trksid=p2047675.c100012.m1985
Click to expand...
:biggrin: And even potentially true, but again the idea he'd somehow be using metal stirrups on their saddles in the manner they ride makes no sense whatsoever. Equivalent to the notion of deliberately putting street tires on a motorcycle for use off-roading. Metal stirrups would be dumb (low bearing surface area), and in 1968 especially, quite antithetical to their being self described cowboys who use western saddles.
 
HarryHenderson said:
So anyway, with no picture of him doing it we don't know that he showed anyone anything stirrup-wise, it just says he did. Even if he did show somebody something, who knows what it was from...
Click to expand...
He showed the bent stirrup to Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy. Hodgson would go on to recall and talk about it without ever asking, "what stirrup are you talking about, Roger never showed me a bent stirrup".

I think that Patterson purposely bent a stirrup to show local Bigfooters right after the claimed filming. It certainly didn't have to come from the actual saddle that he had been using - that was still back at Bluff Creek with the horses. I don't know if Patterson did go on to show others the stirrup or brought it to lectures and the film roadshow.
 
So the horse tumbles over (and is this little Peanuts we're talking about here?) and presumably lands on its side, trapping the stirrup beneath . . . its ribs? The stirrup bends but no mention of cracked ribs for the horse?
 
William Parcher said:
It was 1967, FWIW.
Click to expand...
:biggrin: I knew that.

The Shrike said:
So the horse tumbles over (and is this little Peanuts we're talking about here?) and presumably lands on its side, trapping the stirrup beneath . . . its ribs? The stirrup bends but no mention of cracked ribs for the horse?
Click to expand...
Exactly! In addition to western saddles not even possessing the necessary elements, the practical application of the forces required to bend any kind of in-use saddle stirrup makes the premise of his horse falling on him and "bending" one completely absurd. The actual forces needed would kill both horse and rider long before any stirrup bending occurs. Which shouldn't really be a surprise considering Patterson is a literal king of absurd premises. ;)
 
I make my own saddles and stirrups. Look at this stirrup I made that was bent when my horse fell on me when I filmed the Bigfoot.

Yeah, I see. That stirrup looks like it's more flimsy and bendable compared to the ones you buy.

Yeah, but I don't buy anything that I can make myself.
 
The Shrike said:
So the horse tumbles over (and is this little Peanuts we're talking about here?) and presumably lands on its side, trapping the stirrup beneath . . . its ribs? The stirrup bends but no mention of cracked ribs for the horse?
Click to expand...

I'm sure old timers here have seen this interview, Green questioning Gimlin, but for any newbies, Gimlin changes up the storyline a bit -- Patterson's horse didn't take a fall:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm
 
Last edited:
jerrywayne said:
I'm sure old timers here have seen this interview, Green questioning Gimlin, but for any newbies, Gimlin changes up the storyline a bit -- Patterson's horse didn't take a fall:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm
Click to expand...
The stirrup story just got a lot worse (even if he did fall), he was mounted on sheep. Gimlin: "...this wasn't a full size horse Roger was riding either. It was a pony, a small horse." Green replies: "Yeah I've seen those little horses, he used to haul them in a Volkswagen bus." Amateur stirrup bending isn't a game for little horses. :wink:
 
jerrywayne said:
Move over "wood apes." Now we have Forest Yetis. Anyway, Gimlin comments on state cryptid issue:
http://www.thenorthernlight.com/2018/02/09/sasquatch-eludes-state-recognition-yet-again/
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be totally unprecedented. IIRC, Wyoming declared the jackalope to be its official "mythical beast".


There is considerably more evidence for the existence of jackalopes than there is for bigfeets. Damn near every bar or touristy restaurant in the state has the head of one mounted on the wall.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom