Radio Interview with Albert Ostman

[Patterson-Gimlin]

10 hours ago, Moonface said:

Does anybody here actually believe him?

Certainly not. Another  camp fire story tale.

A good one. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

5 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

I am reasonably familiar with the report and the unidentified 'creature' that has an object over its shoulder with the same colour as Martin's coat if I recall. Horrifically, I think it's much more likely to be a peodophile in a large camouflage jacket (or some such) than a sasquatch though as horrible as that thought is.

 

Whereas the NA tales specifically mention sasquatch by reputation as the kidnapper all the modern tales including the 411 stories are inferred or unknown and sasquatch is hypothesised as a culprit which is very different to me. 

Agreed.  Feral human/pedophile likely.

A large man ape, probably not. 

Too many other possibilities when someone is missing from a national park.

[Arvedis]

7 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Yes.  Ostman's account is probably genuine.  His detailed description of the Sasquatches was remarkably consistent with later accounts.  This despite the fact that Bigfoot was hardly common knowledge when he was first interviewed by John Green in 1957.

 

So before 1957 people living in rural and woodsy areas had no knowledge of wildman myths? No newspaper stories to refer to. Native americans, residents of other backgrounds, trappers, miners and explorers didn't have any experiences prior to 1957. Got it.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Arvedis

[BlackRockBigfoot]

6 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

The trouble I have with those reports are that there are virtually no reports of modern kidnapping, it seems like since the advent of modern technology it's only brief sightings in forest. I know the Dennis Martin case is noted above but that was just a missing person, not a claim that a Bigfoot spirited anyone away, are there any modern stories or kidnap at all, say from the 80s onward? If they were that ubiquitous years ago why would they suddenly stop completely?

 

Seems like a gross exaggeration to me which often happens in tales and legends.

It’s almost as if the advent of more powerful weapons caused them to become more reclusive and less predatory.

 

What is one of the best practices that Paulides has often recommends for those wishing to avoid becoming one of the missing?  Always carry a firearm.

 

There’s a good chance that firearms turned the ‘Cannibal Demon’ into something that peeks around trees, wood knocks, and throws rocks unseen.  
 

They still predate upon the unwary or helpless, but it’s no longer open season on man...and their behavior has changed accordingly.

[Wooly Booger]

35 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

So before 1957 people living in rural and woodsy areas had no knowledge of wildman myths? No newspaper stories to refer to. Native americans, residents of other backgrounds, trappers, miners and explorers didn't have any experiences prior to 1957. Got it.

Albert Ostman admitted never having heard of Sasquatch before meeting his Indian guide. It wasn't common knowledge among non-Indians in the Pacific Northwest. Not by a long shot. 

 

Sasquatch was part of the folklore in British Columbia, but white settlers (those who were actually aware of the folklore) assumed the creatures were large albeit normal looking humans with a normal amount of body hair. The only anomaly being longer than average hair on their head. Not exactly an accurate depiction of a Sasquatch. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Agreed.  Feral human/pedophile likely.

A large man ape, probably not. 

Too many other possibilities when someone is missing from a national park.

The Feral Human/Pedophile Forums just doesn’t have the same appeal though...

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Certainly not. Another  camp fire story tale.

A good one. 

If you guys are going to downvote P-G every time that he says that he doesn’t believe one of these accounts...well, your thumbs are going to get tired before you change his mind.  
 

Why downvote a respectful skeptic?  Look at it like this, the day that P-G finds something presented here as possible evidence of Sasquatch, then we will know that we have something special on our hands.  

[Arvedis]

54 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

Albert Ostman admitted never having heard of Sasquatch before meeting his Indian guide. It wasn't common knowledge among non-Indians in the Pacific Northwest. Not by a long shot. 

 

Sasquatch was part of the folklore in British Columbia, but white settlers (those who were actually aware of the folklore) assumed the creatures were large albeit normal looking humans with a normal amount of body hair. The only anomaly being longer than average hair on their head. Not exactly an accurate depiction of a Sasquatch. 

 

Ostman may have never heard of Sasquatch proper, but that does not mean his story is genuine. Where he came up with all of that unconvincing detail, we will never know. Your logic of non-indigenous peoples not having sufficient knowledge of wildman myths prior to Ostman or '57 or whenever does not compute.

[Celtic Raider]

1 hour ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

It’s almost as if the advent of more powerful weapons caused them to become more reclusive and less predatory.

 

What is one of the best practices that Paulides has often recommends for those wishing to avoid becoming one of the missing?  Always carry a firearm.

 

There’s a good chance that firearms turned the ‘Cannibal Demon’ into something that peeks around trees, wood knocks, and throws rocks unseen.  
 

They still predate upon the unwary or helpless, but it’s no longer open season on man...and their behavior has changed accordingly.

 

Nah, I don't really buy that sorry. Old time miners, trappers, NAs, prospectors etc. in the wild would probably have mostly been armed I would have thought and the guns would have been plenty capable enough of killing them. Possibly there's many more unarmed people actually in the woods these days when you think of leisure pursuits, hikers, day trippers and so on. I'll be honest and say I don't know the stats and I may be very wrong but it seems reasonable to me. 

 

[Arvedis]

Plenty of campfires, booze, fights, crazy talk, and storytelling for people to get ideas from. You know what happens around campfires, (especially when there are  beans, see Blazing Saddles)

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

 

Ostman may have never heard of Sasquatch proper, but that does not mean his story is genuine. Where he came up with all of that unconvincing detail, we will never know. Your logic of non-indigenous peoples not having sufficient knowledge of wildman myths prior to Ostman or '57 or whenever does not compute.

You're assuming my implication was that all non-indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest had no accurate knowledge of Sasquatch-like creatures before 1957.  I meant nothing of the sort. Some did (particularly those who had encounters) many did not. Furthermore, knowledge of local Wildman folklore doesn't necessarily equate to accurate information about Sasquatches. As I mentioned before, many non-indigenous people of British Columbia assumed Sasquatches to be just another Indian tribe, albeit men of exceptionally large size. They weren't viewed as being especially hairy. 

 

The level of detail Ostman described in his account, while not conclusively proving that he had an encounter, certainly adds to his credibility. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[norseman]

13 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

I am reasonably familiar with the report and the unidentified 'creature' that has an object over its shoulder with the same colour as Martin's coat if I recall. Horrifically, I think it's much more likely to be a peodophile in a large camouflage jacket (or some such) than a sasquatch though as horrible as that thought is.

 

Whereas the NA tales specifically mention sasquatch by reputation as the kidnapper all the modern tales including the 411 stories are inferred or unknown and sasquatch is hypothesised as a culprit which is very different to me. 

The time and distance involved I think negates any homo sapien taking Dennis Martin.
 

The family reported it was a bear.
 

The father once he realized his son was no longer in the meadow ran the trail back to the parking. When asked if someone packing his son to that parking lot could have beat him there? He said no way.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

6 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Nah, I don't really buy that sorry. Old time miners, trappers, NAs, prospectors etc. in the wild would probably have mostly been armed I would have thought and the guns would have been plenty capable enough of killing them. Possibly there's many more unarmed people actually in the woods these days when you think of leisure pursuits, hikers, day trippers and so on. I'll be honest and say I don't know the stats and I may be very wrong but it seems reasonable to me. 

 

Exactly.  Miners, trappers, prospectors...all European descended settlers with more powerful weapons than the Native Americans previously possessed.  

 

That’s how a creature that was so prolific in its predation and abduction (that it was more often than not the basis of their Native American names) became more reclusive and selective in that predation and abduction.  
 

The Indians didn’t possess firearms and often described these creatures as cannibals and stealers of women and children.  The Europeans arrived with their guns and the once apparently fairly widespread hostilities against humans became much more rare and selective.

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

You're assuming my implication was that all non-indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest had no accurate knowledge of Sasquatch-like creatures before 1957.  I meant nothing of the sort. Some did (particularly those who had encounters) many did not. Furthermore, knowledge of local Wildman folklore doesn't necessarily equate to accurate information about Sasquatches. As I mentioned before, many non-indigenous people of British Columbia assumed Sasquatches to be just another Indian tribe, albeit men of exceptionally large size. They weren't viewed as being especially hairy. 

 

The level of detail Ostman described in his account, while not conclusively proving that he had an encounter, certainly adds to his credibility. 

Ostman was German. So it may very well be true he hadn’t heard the stories....

 

Also what I find credible about Ostman is he described the Bigfoot male genitalia to be “like a stallion”. Apes other than humans indeed have a baculum. I’m not positive what a logger would have known about great apes in the 1920’s but I doubt it was much.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-humans-have-no-penis-bone/

 

 

 

[Twist]

6 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Exactly.  Miners, trappers, prospectors...all European descended settlers with more powerful weapons than the Native Americans previously possessed.  

 

That’s how a creature that was so prolific in its predation and abduction (that it was more often than not the basis of their Native American names) became more reclusive and selective in that predation and abduction.  
 

The Indians didn’t possess firearms and often described these creatures as cannibals and stealers of women and children.  The Europeans arrived with their guns and the once apparently fairly widespread hostilities against humans became much more rare and selective.

 

 

 

 

Where is the history and accounts of the Europeans engaging with Sasquatch? Why dont we have more stories or even one body?   To change the way Sasquatch acted and lived would seemingly be due to a lot of interaction with the new settlers.