norseman Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) I find one thing rather interesting about the story...... http://www.cryptomun...oot/ostman2010/ Ostman did have a bit more to say about the males. Don Hunter, writing for Rene Dahinden, in their co-authored book, Sasquatch, noted that in “subsequent talks with Rene, Ostman made particular reference to the size of the old male Sasquatch’s penis. He indicated that the head was hooded with skin and in this respect resembled that of a stallion–but only in this respect. He seemed puzzled by the fact that the old man’s was only about two inches long. Now, if Ostman had been fantasizing about the Sasquatch family, it would seem logical that he would have endowed the male with much more impressive equipment than this, to match the rest of its giant stature And the instance becomes even more interesting when we consider that the gorilla, the biggest of all known primates, itself has to make do with a penis of about two inches in length.†In email exchanges with me about this in recent years, John Green recalls that Ostman did describe the penis as “like an inverted funnel, which sounds horse-like.†Green, writing in On the Track of the Sasquatch, does not mention these details but on the reality of the overall story wrote: “It is hard to see how Mr. Ostman, whose story was one of the very earliest, could have known so much without having had an opportunity for close observation of all the individuals he describes, and any sequence of events that could make such observations possible would be certain to sound unbelievable.†As Hunter notes in his book with Dahinden, when Ostman was confronted with an individual’s reservations with his detailed story, he would reply: “I don’t care a **** what you think.†How did a Swedish man in 1924 know so much about primate genitalia? It sounds like (if the story is true) Mr. Bigfoot sports a baculum, which is present in Gorillas and Chimps but not Homo Sapiens. Edited April 24, 2012 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 A Swedish man telling a story in 1957 and in the years after about something he claimed happened in 1924 is what happened. There were plenty of zoos around in 1957 and before and people pick up weird esoteric knowledge in conversation with educated people in any number of social settings. He may also have done a little research to make his story more believable. As far as an affadavit goes it is pretty meaningless under the circumstances as there is nobody who would have any actionable cause to take such a affadavit to court as Mr. Ostman was not trying to sell anybody anything or prove a contractual agreement or give evidence in absentia. It was a bit of showmanship is all. Now about the lie detector test when did such a thing become proof of anything because it seems nobody wants Mr. Gimlin to take one and Bob Heronimus passing a lie dectector is not considered any evidence of truth at all and that seems like we are dealing in double standards doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Your absolutely right, the lie detector is not a proof of anything. I don't think it can even be a reliable guide line. Although I think the person being tested has a lot to do with what a lie detector tells us. For instance if the person is a habitual liar, or a BS 'er as we sometimes call them, then the test would be completely questionable in my opinion. I don't know much about Ostman, but this Forum has taught me how inconsistent Gimlin, and even worse Bob is, or made out to be. What do we know of Ostman's character? What motivation did he have for this story? Did he make money off it? Was it another great construction conspiracy? What exactly is the relevancy of him being Swedish, since its your first point of the post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted April 25, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Transformer, I'd go even further and say that Ostman mentioned what he did about the Genitalia AFTER 1957 as the Book was published in 1975 ( i've got it and just checked ) and it was said that this was mentioned in subsequent talks with Dahinden. So if he's making it up Transformer, he would have told the story first with all of the details in it, then gone back, researched Gorilla Genitalia & then gave that information to Dahinden, just as kind of a little back up ? Again, i find it easier to believe that he observed what he did then told people rather than the conspiracy theories of an uneducated first generation Immigrant to North America from the 1920's. I also highly doubt Ostman would have got into too many conversations with the educated people you mention nor was in different kinds of social settings. The Guy was a first generation Immigrant Prospector, not high society, and was in a time when the gap between the classes was even more so than it is today. What do we know of Ostman's character? - Not a lot, hence why no matter how much we go around in circles, the story is so old that we'll highly unlikely be bale to move forward with it. What motivation did he have for this story? - None that we know of, at all. Did he make money off it? - None that we know if, at all. Was it another great construction conspiracy? - When you look at the above answers and the fact that in general, conspiracy theories are made for a reason, you'd have to make your own mind up. What exactly is the relevancy of him being Swedish, since its your first point of the post? - I think it was said in the context of Norseman asking the question of how a Swedish Man would know about Gorilla Genitalia in 1924, which he needn't have done anyway as i think we've established he would have needed to know about it between 1957 - 1975. Mt bold above. Edited April 25, 2012 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Go back and read the quote that Norseman posted in #76. Ostman wasn't comparing the end of the BF penis to a gorilla at all, he was comparing it to a horse. He never mentioned anything about gorilla physiology. That is something being read into the statement because of the similarity of the shape of the end of the penis of a horse and that of a gorilla. Now ask yourself, what would a Swedish immigrant know about horses in 1924? Probably a lot, since horses were more commonly used in the early part of the last century. He was trying to relate what he saw by comparing it to something he knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted April 25, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted April 25, 2012 Good pick up BFS, i clearly read it wrong just like Transformer did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Reading this thread has been quite interesting. I don't know if Ostman is telling the truth or not about being held captive by a family of sasquatch but what I have learned is that the skeptic will one minute say he's lying because you can't see a mountain from so many miles distance and therefore all pictures that actually show such things are faked........to the next minute the skeptic saying he's lying because he wouldn't have been physically possible to move from point A to point B in such and such amount of time..................even though we don't even know where point A was. Quite amusing. Edited April 25, 2012 by Kerchak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (Apologies to those who find the penis talk unsettling.) Also unclear whether Ostman was referring to the erect or flaccid penis. 2" flaccid? meh. Y'all do know the story of the guy with the word "TINY" tattooed on his penis, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Reading this thread has been quite interesting. I don't know if Ostman is telling the truth or not about being held captive by a family of sasquatch but what I have learned is that the skeptic will one minute say he's lying because you can't see a mountain from so many miles distance and therefore all pictures that actually show such things are faked........to the next minute the skeptic saying he's lying because he wouldn't have been physically possible to move from point A to point B in such and such amount of time..................even though we don't even know where point A was. Quite amusing. Well that's where the sleeping bag ride comes in...... Go back and read the quote that Norseman posted in #76. Ostman wasn't comparing the end of the BF penis to a gorilla at all, he was comparing it to a horse. He never mentioned anything about gorilla physiology. That is something being read into the statement because of the similarity of the shape of the end of the penis of a horse and that of a gorilla. Now ask yourself, what would a Swedish immigrant know about horses in 1924? Probably a lot, since horses were more commonly used in the early part of the last century. He was trying to relate what he saw by comparing it to something he knew. Agreed. Oddly enough, a Stallion and a Chimp have more in common with their respective penis's than a Chimp and a Man do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 25, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 25, 2012 Well not that size matters, but if most witnesses can't even get the dang height of a BF correct how in biggie's baculum are they gonna size up other equipment..... if you gotta hinge belief on this story on the detailed physiological guesstimation I'm sure you are missing the big junk (err picture, lol)... now old Peter (real name) the moose hunter in Manitoba may have been in a better position to size up the equipment since he allegedly killed himself a Sasquatch (and heck he even tried to put the bullet where the anus was in the putative moose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Why couldn't it be that he was 100% sure that the story he told was true, but it really wasn't? Let me guess, .....sarcasim right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There might have been a motive for the old Sasquatch to kidnap him. Albert Ostman was being visited several nights before the kidnapping, so it's possible the Sasquatch wanted Albert to be part of his family or something. Possibly wanted to help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 3, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted May 3, 2012 We'll never know if there was a motive, we'll never know many more details about this story now one way or the other unfortunately.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Well that's where the sleeping bag ride comes in...... Yeah. He might have been more dazed and confused than he though and may have been in the bag a lot longer. Just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 he may have also been pretty rattled from all that furry lovin' in the cave ......(would you admit to it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts