Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Guest Fanofsquatch]

Help me recall the story where a guy befriended a Bigfoot by leaving food, being very patient and taking it inch by inch and the Bigfoot became accustomed to the sound of his pickup as a Pavlovian dinner bell. He said the Bigfoot knew when he was armed, even with a handgun hidden from view, and would not approach unless it was unloaded. I didn't buy it then or now just because I doubt that Bigfoot knows and understands the huge variety of weapons we have and how a gun actually works. I do like the theory of Bigfoot befriending someone living on the fringe, seems to fit like the stories from pot farmers. People often say that animals can sense when someone is not feeling well and I know when my son is sick we have a cat that will not leave his side so is it fair to say that Bigfoot may be able to pick up on a vulnerability in a human making it feel comfortable enough to interact?

[Guest]

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

Yes, but I can't cut specific questions from your post to respond individually - like this.

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..

I did answer your questions, both courteously and honorably.

[BobbyO]

I did answer your questions, both courteously and honorably.

No you didn't, you just asked more of your own, as usual...

[Guest]

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 . . .

How does it add credibility? To me this costs Ostman credibility. We know that Ostman was familiar with these tales - he even includes one in his interview with Green, i.e., about the miner who the Indian had told him was killed by sasquatch. Ostman then goes on to pooh-pooh the "old Indian legend" until - cue suspenseful music - he meets the elusive sasquatch himself! This is Campfire Storytelling 101, and Ostman gets an A.

BF probably crossed since there is a fossil record of a giant ape primate that once lived in Siberia.

There's a giant ape fossil from Siberia?

[Guest]

No you didn't, you just asked more of your own, as usual...

Please revisit post #41. You asked several questions about specific aspects of the appearance of sasquatch as described by Ostman and if these were reminiscent of others' descriptions. I responded that Ostman's account is an early one, and likely influenced subsequent accounts. In fact, Ostman got his description of bigfoot from the "talkative Indian" in the first place. So the only thing that Ostman "got right" about primate anatomy was that he described bigfoots in such a way that they had been described in the PNW for a long time and continue to be described that way today. I don't see how that adds credibility.

[Drew]

There's a giant ape fossil from Siberia?

There is a 40,000 year old hominin fossil found in Siberia.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08976.html

(I can't get the entire Nature article)

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/denisova-krause-2010.html

This guy even says his colleagues are jokingly calling it 'the Yeti'

[BobbyO]

I responded that Ostman's account is an early one, and likely influenced subsequent accounts.

Fabulous, so we're in agreement then as my question to you was " 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 ???? "

However, what you didn't answer were my questions about why you were puzzled in gauging his " accuracy " in Post #39..

But the two go hand in hand, he either was one of the first people out there that described detailed aspects of a Sasquatch because he saw them with his own eyes, or he was a lucky guesser, or he has influenced hundreds if not thousands of subsequent bogus reports up to now & for future Years to come as what he described ( & i'll bet you all the Tea in China ) will STILL be being described in " Sighting Reports " in 2011, 2012 & 2020, amongst lots of other possibilies that he could have been..

If he did the latter, that would mean he did the " lucky guesser " part too because he must of lied about the Sag Crest that he described ( which is consistent within higher end Primates if i'm not mistaken & still gets reported to this day ) with either an INCREDIBLY lucky guess as the only research at that time that was getting back to the Western World was being done by a Guy called George Shaller who started it a full 2 Years AFTER ( 1959 ) Ostman gave his Account to Green ( 1957 ) or he had a direct observation of a Sasquatch..Virtually nothing was known about Gorilla's by the Western World before this Guy's research & this Book, published in 1963..

http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Gorilla-Ecology-Behavior/dp/0226736350

As i say, i don't believe all of the Story, far from it in fact, but there are some parts of it that make me sit up & take notice, like that above for example & just because you are a Skeptic Sas doesn't mean to say you shouldn't either..

Of course what i say doesn't prove or disprove anything, but i think the Sag Crest description is a pretty important fact of that Interview & the legitimacy of it as to " guess " or " make that up " is in my opinion again, more unbelievable than certain parts of the Story itself...

Also, this was another question of mine that you didn't answer, do you understand why he maybe didn't shoot one now ?? You know, the one about him being 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..

Edited October 4, 2010 by BobbyO

[Guest]

There is a 40,000 year old hominin fossil found in Siberia.

Cool, but not a giant ape and, while technically from Siberia, nowhere near Beringia.

Krause et al. 2010.pdf

[BobbyO]

Cool, but not a giant ape and, while technically from Siberia, nowhere near Beringia.

That's great..

[Guest Kerchak]

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?

Going by his account, 3 of the 4 didn't seem to want him there and were quite wary of him.

The old man might well have displayed rare and atypical behaviour in taking Ostman. Perhaps usually large male squatches are forbidden to kidnap hairless white folks? Maybe they get lectures from their old ladies before setting off. "If you bring back one of those hairless white things I'm warning you, I'm leaving you and taking the kids with me". Perhaps that day in '24 when the big guy set off, his ol' lady forgot the usual lecture because she was too busy sorting her curly hair bangs out?

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

Is it? Like Patterson and Roe are basically the same story according to some?

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

So Ostman found gold there in '24 and lived in rich luxury for the rest of his life and er he didn't try to warn people about a scary monster story for over 3 decades?

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

You think he should have yanked a big clump of hair or a fingernail from the big guy while he was rolling around on the floor in distress?

[Guest]

Fabulous, so we're in agreement then as my question to you was " 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 ???? "

No. I know of one story that is similar (Muchalat Harry's) but it's unclear to me which one came first - they're both from the '20s. The fact that Ostman's bigfoots look basically like other people's description is, as I've indicated, insignificant to Ostman's veracity.

However, what you didn't answer were my questions about why you were puzzled in gauging his " accuracy " in Post #39..

Unless you're hiding a bigfoot specimen from the world, you have no way to assess Ostman's accuracy. The best you can do is establish that Ostman described bigfoot the way other people do. You've done that, although there's some wiggle room in there as well. For example, I'm not sure how frequently sagittal crests are reported among eyewitnesses. I also have not read a lot of accounts of waddling goose walks among bigfoots. So we'd need to be careful not to cherry-pick accounts that provide similar descriptions to Ostman's because one could just as easily cherry-pick for differences. Ostman's bigfoots were described basically the way people describe them today, basically the way a lot of Tirademan's 19th Century newspapers described them, and basically the way some native peoples described them presumably since prehistory.

If he did the latter, that would mean he did the " lucky guesser " part too because he must of lied about the Sag Crest that he described ...Virtually nothing was known about Gorilla's by the Western World before this Guy's research & this Book, published in 1963..

So the sagittal crest on 1933's King Kong was a lucky guess too?

Also, this was another question of mine that you didn't answer, do you understand why he maybe didn't shoot one now ??

When you start paying my salary I'll do a better job of promptly answering all of your questions.

My comment about "not excited enough to shoot one" was not specifically about Ostman. It was in response to a general comment from a post of Huntster's. Ostman's story conveniently explains why he did not shoot one, yes.

[Guest]

The old man might well have displayed rare and atypical behaviour in taking Ostman.

Would that bigfoots would do this these days, kidnapping someone with a camera . . .

Is it? Like Patterson and Roe are basically the same story according to some?

Both stories from British Columbia, both with an "Indian" component, both from the 1920s, both men picked up in their sleeping bags, carried a long way from the camp, spent time in some kind of bigfoot lair with multiple bigfoots, eventually saw an opportunity to escape, and made a mad dash for freedom.

So Ostman found gold there in '24 and lived in rich luxury for the rest of his life and er he didn't try to warn people about a scary monster story for over 3 decades?

How do you know he didn't tell the story for 3 decades? Maybe he did share the story, locally, long before 1957. But no, I'm not suggesting Ostman was hiding his lost gold mine. I only mean that there's a scary story attached to a place where lots of adventurous people might want to go. Clearly the story predates Ostman because by his own account the "talkative Indian" told him that people thought the original miner had been taken by sasquatch up near his mine.

You think he should have yanked a big clump of hair or a fingernail from the big guy while he was rolling around on the floor in distress?

Maybe so, but more likely he was there for a while, the bigfoots were sharing food with him, etc. He might have had the opportunity to grab some hairs or something. The point is not that he somehow failed to get some corroborating evidence, only that there is none.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 03 October 2010 - 07:49 PM, said:

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?

I always have plenty of ammo; usually a full magazine, spare magazines (or individual rounds in an ammo bandolier), and a full box in my pack; about 30 rounds total.

More sasquatches might mean more carcasses for Saskeptic to dissect.

[Guest]

More sasquatches might mean more carcasses for Saskeptic to dissect.

I appreciate that you've got my back, Huntster.

[Guest Kerchak]

Would that bigfoots would do this these days, kidnapping someone with a camera . . .

Well they really didn't usually go around kidnapping people in the old days either. I mean, really how many sasquatch kidnapping stories do you know from either era? It's clearly atypical. Unless of course 99.9% of the humans kidnapped never make it back to tell their stories LOL.

Both stories from British Columbia, both with an "Indian" component, both from the 1920s, both men picked up in their sleeping bags, carried a long way from the camp, spent time in some kind of bigfoot lair with multiple bigfoots, eventually saw an opportunity to escape, and made a mad dash for freedom.

Ostman was Swedish, not 'Indian' like Harry. Ostman had to get a ride to the area while Harry made his own way. Harry was on Vancouver Island and not the mainland. Harry wasn't in a sleeping bag and wasn't carried very far. Harry saw around 20 sasquatch and none seemed wary of him. Harry saw bones and thought he was going to be eaten. Harry was with them for less than a day. Harry escaped in a low key manner and made his way to his canoe. Harry was almost insane with fear by the time he returned home and allegedly never went into the deep forest again.

I see significant major differences between the Muchalat Harry and Albert Ostman stories.

How do you know he didn't tell the story for 3 decades? Maybe he did share the story, locally, long before 1957.

And yet by his own admission he kept quiet and didn't even tell the folks who he first came across and who gave him a shave and clean clothes etc. He was worried about being thought of as mad. When Ostam returned, he was able to hide it well.

But no, I'm not suggesting Ostman was hiding his lost gold mine. I only mean that there's a scary story attached to a place where lots of adventurous people might want to go. Clearly the story predates Ostman because by his own account the "talkative Indian" told him that people thought the original miner had been taken by sasquatch up near his mine.

That's true, but it clearly didn't put Ostman off.

He might have had the opportunity to grab some hairs or something.

When you watch King Kong do you scream and shout at the t.v when Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot escape from Kong by climbing down the vine yelling "hey, you can't escape empty handed. Grab some of Kong's hair for proof!"?????

Me? I shout "go,go go, get away from there!"

The point is not that he somehow failed to get some corroborating evidence, only that there is none.

True. But I don't think anyone here is claiming the story is unquestionably fact and I don't think anyone here accepts it totally. I'm skeptical about it, but I can still seriously consider that it 'might' be true. Ostman doesn't give his story any supernatural elements and there isn't anything in the story that reads "impossible/no way" for me. I'll take the Ostman kidnapping in wild and remote BC in '24 over sasquatch reports in suburban USA today.