Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Guest]

I don't know y'all. This thing wouldn't come up on the porch yet it would get in a noisy vehicle. I remember my cross country move with my Bengal cat. The vet refused to give me medication for the cat and told me to use Dramamine instead. I ended up with a drunk mad kitty warbling and trying to tear the cat carrier apart for the first three hours of the trip until I pulled into a vets office for emergency sedation. Can you imagine a Bigfoot in the back seat panicking? I'm surprised he had a vehicle left.Can you imagine how the station wagon smelled after the trip if he did manage to keep him calm? I bet it had to be detailed.

[BobbyO]

Anyone care to comment on what makes you think Ostman's story was anything other than a story? To me it's a classic campfire tale, and nothing else.

If it was nothing but a story IE none of it happened at all, would you think it would be fair to say then Sas that lots & lots of eyewitness account sthat you've read over the Years would be based & maybe modelled on teh Ostman story ??

Because he was one of the first people to give the kind of detail that he does ( he came forward in 57 i believe, so says squatchopedia anyway ), that we still read in Sighting Reports that happen at the present time huh ??

==

http://www.squatchopedia.com/index.php/Albert_Ostman

Though still hotly debated, his story is noteworthy because: 1) it is one of the earliest documented first person anecdotes, which was even backed by a sworn affidavit; 2) it is the best known sasquatch abduction story; 3) Ostman, who was relatively uneducated(?), was able to describe a number of accurate anatomical features (for primates) and was able to maintain a consistent story over many years.

==

Incredible imaginiation the Guy had if that was a complete lie, the whole story i mean...

& an imagination that was actually correct aswell as it described " a number of accurate anatomical features (for primates) ", which is surely a contradiction of terms anyway no ??

Me personally, i'd be more amazed if this story was a complete lie than if it wasn't..

I said previosuly in this thread that i don't necessarily believe all of the account & i wouldn't be surprised of Ostman fabricated parts of it but i would be suprised if he fabricated all of it as the Man would have been a genius & must have had a Crystal Ball too..

Edited October 3, 2010 by BobbyO

[Guest]

If it was nothing but a story IE none of it happened at all, would you think it would be fair to say then Sas that lots & lots of eyewitness account sthat you've read over the Years would be based & maybe modelled on teh Ostman story ??

The similarity of Muchalat Harry's story notwithstanding, I'm not sure that I would expect a lot of copycat stories. How many people have claimed in the past two years to have shot a bigfoot and stuffed it in a freezer? More to the point, if you would expect copycat stories to spring from a made-up original, then wouldn't you also expect copycat stories from an authentic original?

Though still hotly debated,

Who hotly debates Ostman? I was, frankly, surprised that anyone was seriously giving the story any credence in 2010.

was able to describe a number of accurate anatomical features (for primates)

Assuming Ostman was a primate, wouldn't it be weirder if he couldn't accurately describe primate features? If you mean, bigfoot-specific anatomical features, then I'm a bit puzzled on how you gauged his accuracy.

Incredible imaginiation the Guy had if that was a complete lie, the whole story i mean...

Yes. Why not give the credit for his vivid imagination and storytelling ability? Lots of people have creative imaginative skills like this. We call these people "authors." Just because someone relates a fantastic story, and sticks to the details of that story for many years, doesn't make the story true. I'm willing to bet that J. K. Rowling has a pretty good idea of specific details she put into her first Harry Potter book, for example.

[Huntster]

georgerm, on 28 September 2010 - 08:56 AM, said:

If all you have to add to the habituation thread is sarcasm, why not cast your skepticism on your own thread?

What was sarcastic about my comment? A statement was made that the impression of non-violence is something that might lure a bigfoot out of hiding to habituate with a human. There are an awful lot of peaceful people who spend time in the woods but never see bigfoot. Why is it only some of those people who have that experience?

Why do you think, Professor?

Maybe the incredibly few people who come across a sasquatch are not prepared to be "peaceful" at that moment? Maybe they get kinda' "excited"? Surprised?

[Guest]

Maybe the incredibly few people who come across a sasquatch are not prepared to be "peaceful" at that moment? Maybe they get kinda' "excited"?

Not excited enough to shoot one, apparently.

Sorry, but I'm reserving the right to be skeptical of any bigfoot habituation story that does not include photos like this: http://thesisterproject.com/smith/a-sister-to-all-beings-jane-goodall/.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 03 October 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

Maybe the incredibly few people who come across a sasquatch are not prepared to be "peaceful" at that moment? Maybe they get kinda' "excited"?

Not excited enough to shoot one, apparently.

As one inclined to shoot, and likely described as one to shoot before the drop of a hat, I suppose I should be the one expected to shoot.

But it is not likely that I'd shoot a sasquatch. First, it's either human or close to human. Secondly, they don't appear to be aggressive. Thirdly, I don't think I'd be so afraid of one upon sight that I'd have to shoot it.

Sorry, but I'm reserving the right to be skeptical of any bigfoot habituation story that does not include photos like this: http://thesisterproj...-jane-goodall/.

Bigfoot co-habitation stories are just that: stories.

I don't reject them, but I don't accept them individually, either.

[Guest Kerchak]

But it is not likely that I'd shoot a sasquatch. First, it's either human or close to human. Secondly, they don't appear to be aggressive. Thirdly, I don't think I'd be so afraid of one upon sight that I'd have to shoot it.

And fourth, what if while you're skinning it and cutting it up there are other beady sasquatch eyes watching you and waiting for their chance to get even after you've just killed brother squatch?

[Guest Kerchak]

Who hotly debates Ostman? I was, frankly, surprised that anyone was seriously giving the story any credence in 2010.

Why? Admittedly it doesn't fall under the 'normal behaviour for sasquatch' category but it's not as if Ostman described them as shape shifters who lived inside UFOs. The biggest gripe seems to be their food intake but there again he did state they spent a lot of their time looking for food.

If sasquatch exists then what exactly makes his story impossible? Because you don't accept sasquatch to begin with?

Edited October 4, 2010 by Kerchak

[BobbyO]

My BOLD..

The similarity of Muchalat Harry's story notwithstanding, I'm not sure that I would expect a lot of copycat stories. How many people have claimed in the past two years to have shot a bigfoot and stuffed it in a freezer? More to the point, if you would expect copycat stories to spring from a made-up original, then wouldn't you also expect copycat stories from an authentic original?

I didn't actually mean exact copy cat stories ( did i even say copy cat ?? ), i said " based on & maybe modelled "..What i meant was forthcoming stories that gave pretty much the same detailed features for example.. I did also however, say that i didn't necessarily believe ALL of the account, but that doesnt' mean i disbelieve all of it either.

Who hotly debates Ostman? I was, frankly, surprised that anyone was seriously giving the story any credence in 2010.

I didn't say anybody hotly disputed Ostman, i said people hotly dispute Ostman's story & if there was a BFF Archive, which i dont' think there is, but then you'd see proof that people hotly dispute the Ostman story in the 20 plus page thread on it..& i'm surprised that you're suprised Sas, that's very naive of you to be suprised that people who KNOW that BF exists ( of which many, admittedly, can't prove it unfortunately ) wouldn't give a story like it any credence, be it in 1960, 1999 or 2010..But each to their own i guess..

Assuming Ostman was a primate, wouldn't it be weirder if he couldn't accurately describe primate features? If you mean, bigfoot-specific anatomical features, then I'm a bit puzzled on how you gauged his accuracy.

Puzzled ?? Why ?? Do you not read Sighting Reports Sas ?? If you do, how many times have you seen reference to things like this ??

" The young fellow went up the mountain to the east every day, he could climb better than a mountain goat. " = A reference to excellent agility when climbing, have you never seen that before Sas in Reports ??

Or........

" The young fellow might have been between 11-18 years old and about seven feet tall and might weight about 300 lbs. His chest would be 50-55 inches, his waist about 36-38 inches. He had wide jaws, narrow forehead, that slanted upward round at the back about four or five inches higher than the forehead. " = Sag Crest maybe ?? Tapered Waist ?? You ever seen those 2 spoke about in Reports before Sas ??

Or.........

" She had very wide hips, and a goose-like walk. " Goose like ?? Like a waddle ?? You ever seen people report that Sas ??

Or.......

" The old man must have been near eight feet tall. Big barrel chest and big hump on his back " = Barrell Chested ?? I've seen numerous reports that have described the exact same thing, have you Sas ?? Pretty sure i've read about the back being what we'd call " humped " possibly too

Yes. Why not give the credit for his vivid imagination and storytelling ability? Lots of people have creative imaginative skills like this. We call these people "authors." Just because someone relates a fantastic story, and sticks to the details of that story for many years, doesn't make the story true. I'm willing to bet that J. K. Rowling has a pretty good idea of specific details she put into her first Harry Potter book, for example.

Oh i agree Sas, it doesn't make the story true..

[Guest]

Because wild creatures that kidnap humans have a funny way of ending up dead?

Because it makes no sense for a species that has survived to modern times by avoiding humans at all costs to decide one day to keep one as a pet?

Because it's basically the same story as Muchalat Harry's?

Because a gold mine is exactly the sort of thing one might want to protect with a scary monster story?

Because Ostman spent a few days with these creatures but had no physical evidence to back his story?

[Guest]

My BOLD..

Quotes are messed up in your post BobbyO, so please bear with me.

I think you had stated that you were impressed with Ostman's descriptions of primate features. I asked why. You countered with allusions to Ostman's descriptions of his bigfoots that are common features in accounts we read today.

So? For one, he describes giant people with long hair, long arms, and really big feet. The "talkative Indian" had already told him that that's what the sasquatch looked like, right? Also, Ostman's was one of the first well-publicized accounts. Squatchopedia claims he was first interviewed by John Green in 1957, i.e., before "bigfoot" became a household word. Subsequent stories have been influenced by Ostman's account - hence the general similarity in how bigfoot is described among many accounts.

[Drew]

Because it makes no sense for a species that has survived to modern times by avoiding humans at all costs to decide one day to keep one as a pet?

It makes no sense for an animal that has survived by CONSCIOUSLY avoiding humans at all costs, to blatantly: Trash game-cams, peer in windows, kill dogs, press on camper's chests, stop traffic on freeways, walk across hillsides in broad daylight with nearly 100 people looking at it while carrying an infant, kidnap miners.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Drew

[BobbyO]

I'm bearing with you..

Quotes are not messed up in my Post as i see it S, what i wrrote is just in BOLD, you see them S ??

Edit : & S, remember, that i was courteous to answer your questions so please in turn do the honourable thing & answer mine instead of just asking more questions that you want people like me to " answer ", instead of just comment on liek you originally asked, thanks..

Edited October 4, 2010 by BobbyO

[BobbyO]

Not excited enough to shoot one, apparently.

Sorry, but I'm reserving the right to be skeptical of any bigfoot habituation story that does not include photos like this: http://thesisterproject.com/smith/a-sister-to-all-beings-jane-goodall/.

You don't have to apologies to anyone S, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so long as it falls within the rules of the Forum you're giving your opnion on i guess..

& no, not excited to shoot one enough you're right..

& i can understand why can't you ?? I mean, believe it or not, it seemed he was more concerned about his general personal safety like any sane minded person would have been if what he was saying was true, than being able to get evidence for people who, nearly a Century later, would be demanding it..

" A 30-30 might not have much effect on this fellow, it might make him mad. I only had six shells so I decided to wait. There must be a better way than killing him, "

[georgerm]

Really good conversations to read. Both sides are making excellant points without insults.

The American Indian was believed to have crossed the land brigde more than 10,000 years ago. Sasquatch was believed to have crossed then also. Unfortunately there is no written record of how BF and the Indians interacted. Some Indians according to modern reports seemed to be at odds with BF and feared going into their mountain hide outs. The Indians complained that BF kidnapped people. This adds to the credibility to the Ostman story but like Sas says there is not one shread of evidence proving this story.

More proof that Indians came across the land bridge below. BF probably crossed since there is a fossil record of a giant ape primate that once lived in Siberia. This sets the stage for habituation possibilities between BF and friendly Indians or wars with unfriendly Indians.

Proof of migration: To answer this question, the authors picked out 678 markers in the DNA of present-day members of 29 Native American populations across North, Central and South America. They also analyzed data from two Siberian groups. The figure to your right is from the publication, which illustrates who and where the populations sampled are from.

They figured out that a unique genetic variant, which is part of a noncoding region, is widespread in Native Americans across both American continents and it originated in Siberia.

http://anthropology.net/2007/11/27/a-single-main-migration-across-bering-strait/

The Earliest Americans crossed the Arctic Ocean from Asia to North America during

the Ice Age. Around 11,000 B.C. to 9,000 B.C., Native Americans walked across the

land bridge and slowly migrated south establishing three of our earliest distinct

cultures: the Inuits, the Anasazi, and the Mound Builders.

http://www.ckcolorado.org/units/3rd_grade/3_theland.PDF