Jump to content
Guest JudasBeast

The Carter Farm

Recommended Posts

Guest JudasBeast

Whatever happened to Mary Green and Janice Carter? Does anyone know if the Carter family still occupies the Bigfoot farm? Has anyone on this forum ever been to the Carter farm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Silver Fox

Whatever happened to Mary Green and Janice Carter? Does anyone know if the Carter family still occupies the Bigfoot farm? Has anyone on this forum ever been to the Carter farm?

Mary Green is still in the picture. She is quite old, very heavy and does not appear to be in good health, based on a photo. Jan Carter sold her farm to Adrian Erickson as part of his plan to purchase habituation sites. The BF's promptly disappeared as soon as the farm was sold :D Jan Carter took the money and moved to a new farm 80 miles away. All the BF's packed up all their stuff and followed her over the 80 miles of open terrain to the new farm. Now the BF's are all hanging out over at Jan's new place and the Jan and BF saga continues.

I've never been to the farm, but there was a good writeup about it. There were never any BF's at that farm, IMHO. It's all a gigantic lie. :angry:

Mary Green is just a gullible person, and she has done a lot of other good research. She just got scammed by Jan Carter, who IMHO may be mentally ill, possibly with schizophrenia.

Mary Green one of the few who has seen the latest Kentucky Footage, and it is supposed to be a total blockbuster. It's said to be better than the PGF film! There are 14 seconds of closeup footage, from the chest up, of a young female BF named Matilda. She is in the forest and she is slowly approaching the camera. It shows excellent closeup footage of a BF in HD, for the first time in history. Meldrum, Bindernagel and the rest have all seen it too, and everyone thinks it is genuine.

The film was shot by the previous owners of the home who sold it to Erickson. There is also an incredible 4-5 minutes of HD footage of Matilda sleeping in a forest. This is not so closeup. She is lying on her back in the forest and looks very peaceful. At the end of the movie she starts to get alarmed and wake up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Mary Green is still in the picture. She is quite old, very heavy and does not appear to be in good health, based on a photo. Jan Carter sold her farm to Adrian Erickson as part of his plan to purchase habituation sites. The BF's promptly disappeared as soon as the farm was sold :D Jan Carter took the money and moved to a new farm 80 miles away. All the BF's packed up all their stuff and followed her over the 80 miles of open terrain to the new farm. Now the BF's are all hanging out over at Jan's new place and the Jan and BF saga continues.

I've never been to the farm, but there was a good writeup about it. There were never any BF's at that farm, IMHO. It's all a gigantic lie. :angry:

Mary Green is just a gullible person, and she has done a lot of other good research. She just got scammed by Jan Carter, who IMHO may be mentally ill, possibly with schizophrenia.

Mary Green one of the few who has seen the latest Kentucky Footage, and it is supposed to be a total blockbuster. It's said to be better than the PGF film! There are 14 seconds of closeup footage, from the chest up, of a young female BF named Matilda. She is in the forest and she is slowly approaching the camera. It shows excellent closeup footage of a BF in HD, for the first time in history. Meldrum, Bindernagel and the rest have all seen it too, and everyone thinks it is genuine.

The film was shot by the previous owners of the home who sold it to Erickson. There is also an incredible 4-5 minutes of HD footage of Matilda sleeping in a forest. This is not so closeup. She is lying on her back in the forest and looks very peaceful. At the end of the movie she starts to get alarmed and wake up.

What are the plans for release of the Kentucky Footage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Silver Fox

What are the plans for release of the Kentucky Footage?

It will be released to time right in with the publication of the DNA evidence, assuming that it is accepted for publication that is. That is Ketchum's work and it is out for peer review right now, which could take some time. What's weird is that the DNA supposedly shows BF between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, which to me doesn't seem to make sense that they would be so human. They seem so ape-like. Close to Neaderthal, but huge size, no tools, no fire? What gives? Doesn't make sense. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

It will be released to time right in with the publication of the DNA evidence, assuming that it is accepted for publication that is. That is Ketchum's work and it is out for peer review right now, which could take some time. What's weird is that the DNA supposedly shows BF between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, which to me doesn't seem to make sense that they would be so human. They seem so ape-like. Close to Neaderthal, but huge size, no tools, no fire? What gives? Doesn't make sense. :mad:

Actually makes perfect sense to me. We've talked about this on the What is a Bigfoot thread. One of the theories I've been considering is that they diverged out of homo heidelbergensis along with cro magnon and neanderthal. Or, alternatively, they are an outcast mix between us and neanderthal that we drove out of prime habitat and kept chasing off or killing whenever we encountered them. One of the outcomes from interspecies breeding is sometimes a breed that is larger than either parent. Look at the mule and the Liger as two examples. A hybrid species larger than us, outcast by us, and persecuted after it was outcast might not have the benefit of social instruction in fire or other tools, have less need of them, and actually find them a liability if we constantly kept it on the run. It puts the story of Esau in a new light.

Edited by JDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You know, the atmosphere of the bigfoot field has not historically been a positive thing. It erroneously created villains, liars, and individuals with mental issues, all because they made claims of long term habituations that most couldn't believe. If people want to be ready for bigfoot's proof of existence, its gonna take a little less condemnation for the evidence to be able to be laid out over time. Don't think everything about bigfoot will be understood with some DNA or a few videos. The fact of the matter is, it will be those who have had long term interactions with them who will likely be the ambassadors for the species.

Thing is, I've only forum texted with Jan Carter a few times in the past. I can't even remember those few conversations we had. I remember when she came onto forums and really was never given a chance though. Forums were mostly occupied by people who never had any form of repeat encounters. A lot of mean angry vindictive people who performed well in packs. It was not pretty. I'm sure it really hurt her feelings though, something probably nobody ever gave a second thought about.

Ironically, I would not have been able to spend the last week with Igor Burtsev if it weren't for Jan Carter. She is very much instrumental with his visit, just as she was years ago. Funny how a group consensus can write people off the way it does. It's call Groupthink once again, especially damaging when there is a lack of adequate information when a conclusion is made. But much of it is also the effects of the prior condemnation that took place. People, what if she really had those things happen? What knowledge was lost because everyone was so mean spirited?

Igor and I didn't talk too much about Jan Carter or the farm, but I will tell everyone this, he is fully convinced himself that it all happened. Remember, he stayed there for quite a while. He got to see evidence first hand that the rest of the community only heard rumors about or gauged from a few photos. Well, photos never do justice. Ask yourselves this, why would someone as business savvy as Adrian Erickson buy the Carter Farm? Do you really think he'd do it w/o seeing some form of evidence of her claims?

With respect to Mary and Jan. Keep in mind that people fight. Relationships break down. Always have. People get angry and say bad things against one another. Maybe even some untruths or things that simply become misconstrued.

I think its highly improper to label someone mentally ill too, member or not, especially if there is no evidence of this other than her stories were not believed by the status quo. Keep in mind, the Kentucky video is also based on a habituation. There are habituations all over the place people. The old way though was to Attack people who made such claims. All because the experiences of the finger pointers were nothing like the experiences of those who offered to share. Human nature has a very ugly side of doing what it can to take people down. Well guess what, the mysteries surrounding bigfoot are going to require far more tolerance of people who have insights. Heck, I have a few of my own insights about them that I won't even dare share yet because this field is not yet ready. My so called insights are fairly limited, but I do try to open doors to thinking as many can see. There are many people who have different pieces of the puzzle. How will all this information be assembled will be the challenge.

Before Igor got here I encouraged people to come up with questions I could ask him. The Carter Farm would have been a perfect topic. Well, he's gone now so that opportunity is lost. Few outsiders knew more about the Farm than he. As someone who has been researching bigfoot for decades, conducting expeditions for Yeti, examining the Zana family remains, he fully believes that the Carter Farm claims were true. How much credibility is that worth?

I think individuals in this field really need to not make conclusions simply because a claim isn't something they don't believe or because YOU haven't seen the creature or evidence yourself. Guess what, just about everything about these creatures makes no sense. Get used to it too, because everything we learn about them will be in conflict with what we were taught the world was supposed to be about growing up. With respect to that old saying of not having so open a mind that your brains fall out, well, in order to understand the nature of these creatures, we may all need to lose a little grey matter in the process of changing our reality. Everyone will need to manage it the best they can. lol

Edited by PragmaticTheorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

You know, the atmosphere of the bigfoot field has not historically been a positive thing. It erroneously created villains, liars, and individuals with mental issues, all because they made claims of long term habituations that most couldn't believe. If people want to be ready for bigfoot's proof of existence, its gonna take a little less condemnation for the evidence to be able to be laid out over time. Don't think everything about bigfoot will be understood with some DNA or a few videos. The fact of the matter is, it will be those who have had long term interactions with them who will likely be the ambassadors for the species.

Thing is, I've only forum texted with Jan Carter a few times in the past. I can't even remember those few conversations we had. I remember when she came onto forums and really was never given a chance though. Forums were mostly occupied by people who never had any form of repeat encounters. A lot of mean angry vindictive people who performed well in packs. It was not pretty. I'm sure it really hurt her feelings though, something probably nobody ever gave a second thought about.

Ironically, I would not have been able to spend the last week with Igor Burtsev if it weren't for Jan Carter. She is very much instrumental with his visit, just as she was years ago. Funny how a group consensus can write people off the way it does. It's call Groupthink once again, especially damaging when there is a lack of adequate information when a conclusion is made. But much of it is also the effects of the prior condemnation that took place. People, what if she really had those things happen? What knowledge was lost because everyone was so mean spirited?

Igor and I didn't talk too much about Jan Carter or the farm, but I will tell everyone this, he is fully convinced himself that it all happened. Remember, he stayed there for quite a while. He got to see evidence first hand that the rest of the community only heard rumors about or gauged from a few photos. Well, photos never do justice. Ask yourselves this, why would someone as business savvy as Adrian Erickson buy the Carter Farm? Do you really think he'd do it w/o seeing some form of evidence of her claims?

With respect to Mary and Jan. Keep in mind that people fight. Relationships break down. Always have. People get angry and say bad things against one another. Maybe even some untruths or things that simply become misconstrued.

I think its highly improper to label someone mentally ill too, member or not, especially if there is no evidence of this other than her stories were not believed by the status quo. Keep in mind, the Kentucky video is also based on a habituation. There are habituations all over the place people. The old way though was to Attack people who made such claims. All because the experiences of the finger pointers were nothing like the experiences of those who offered to share. Human nature has a very ugly side of doing what it can to take people down. Well guess what, the mysteries surrounding bigfoot are going to require far more tolerance of people who have insights. Heck, I have a few of my own insights about them that I won't even dare share yet because this field is not yet ready. My so called insights are fairly limited, but I do try to open doors to thinking as many can see. There are many people who have different pieces of the puzzle. How will all this information be assembled will be the challenge.

Before Igor got here I encouraged people to come up with questions I could ask him. The Carter Farm would have been a perfect topic. Well, he's gone now so that opportunity is lost. Few outsiders knew more about the Farm than he. As someone who has been researching bigfoot for decades, conducting expeditions for Yeti, examining the Zana family remains, he fully believes that the Carter Farm claims were true. How much credibility is that worth?

I think individuals in this field really need to not make conclusions simply because a claim isn't something they don't believe or because YOU haven't seen the creature or evidence yourself. Guess what, just about everything about these creatures makes no sense. Get used to it too, because everything we learn about them will be in conflict with what we were taught the world was supposed to be about growing up. With respect to that old saying of not having so open a mind that your brains fall out, well, in order to understand the nature of these creatures, we may all need to lose a little grey matter in the process of changing our reality. Everyone will need to manage it the best they can. lol

I'm not inclined to throw out everything here. Several things Mary reports from the farm ring true to me. Several other things just seem too natural and yet off-beat to have been contrived. Things like coleslaw, cat poop, and goats. The story about how her younger sister had been beaten one night by their mother, then the panic as they tried to get her to come back to the house before the young male got her. The flow of several of Mary's interviews seems too natural for broad deception. But there's too much controversy regarding the language issue for me to accept it at this point.

Bottom line is that I think there's some truth, some embellishment, and some fabrication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JudasBeast

Thank you for your quick response Fox. I’m so glad I asked this question because it seems that plenty has happened since the days of National Geographic’s cheap shots and the late night garlic borrowing.

So if what your saying is that Janice was delusional or had some type of mental illness then how should we view those who validate her claims?

I can remember hearing a radio show with a researcher named Joe Fex a few years back. He claimed that these creatures came within a few feet of him while he was on the farm with Mary Green. Close enough that he was able to greet them. Close enough that he feared for his life.

This is only one claim that I’m mentioning. I do know of a few others and I’m pretty sure that there’s more then a few.

Cryptozoology.com use to have wars over this topic. It was those who staked out the Carter farm and had experienced certain activity vs. those who spent time at the same location and came up with nothing. It was a bad scene.

Personally I’m torn. Sometimes I feel that the book Mary penned with Janice should be placed in the fiction section. However, there’s another side of me that wants to know what all of her loyal supporters are seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog

If something were to be tested for DNA and it returned results, how could it be determined to be BF DNA if we have no control to compare it to? Wouldn't it just come back as unidentifiable? Doesn't there have to be a confirmed BF sample for comparison? No confirmed BF = No confirmed sample. You have to prove existence to have a verifiable control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

They basically do a statistical analysis on the DNA results of the suspect vs known DNA samples. So they can say something like "it's 85% human" or "it's 95% gorilla".

It's meaningful in that it can EXCLUDE species. So you can say "it's not human" or "it's not a gorilla", and then do a process of elimination. Once you exhaust all of the plausible matches and none fit, you have a new something....

Edited by gigantor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

They basically do a statistical analysis on the DNA results of the suspect vs known DNA samples. So they can say something like "it's 85% human" or "it's 95% gorilla".

It's meaningful in that it can EXCLUDE species. So you can say "it's not human" or "it's not a gorilla", and then do a process of elimination. Once you exhaust all of the plausible matches and none fit, you have a new something....

The existence of a new species has been accepted with less. With something near human, though, the standard is higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

Thing is, I've only forum texted with Jan Carter a few times in the past. I can't even remember those few conversations we had. I remember when she came onto forums and really was never given a chance though. Forums were mostly occupied by people who never had any form of repeat encounters. A lot of mean angry vindictive people who performed well in packs. It was not pretty. I'm sure it really hurt her feelings though, something probably nobody ever gave a second thought about.

I had a short conversation with Jan when she came to the old BFF to answer some questions. It was several years ago, & I was still trying to figure out what was going on here. I told her about some things that were happening & asked her opinion about them. The answers she gave me all turned out to be exactly right. She told me things that would have been impossible for her to know if she had not had real encounters.

I think she was banned after a few days, & I never found out why. I guess the angry vindictive people just couldn't stand to hear any more of what she had to say. I was disgusted at the way she was treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sallaranda

If something were to be tested for DNA and it returned results, how could it be determined to be BF DNA if we have no control to compare it to? Wouldn't it just come back as unidentifiable? Doesn't there have to be a confirmed BF sample for comparison? No confirmed BF = No confirmed sample. You have to prove existence to have a verifiable control.

Well, there would be no way to conclusively prove that the DNA samples belong to a certain unknown. In fact, the scientific community's knowledge of genetics and DNA is not quite advanced enough to be able to "read" the DNA. This is a major step that scientists are trying to say. As it stands, there would be no way to identify morphological traits of the host of the DNA samples. Unfortunately.

They basically do a statistical analysis on the DNA results of the suspect vs known DNA samples. So they can say something like "it's 85% human" or "it's 95% gorilla".

It's meaningful in that it can EXCLUDE species. So you can say "it's not human" or "it's not a gorilla", and then do a process of elimination. Once you exhaust all of the plausible matches and none fit, you have a new something....

Bingo. However, a DNA sample that has been corrupted in some way would also yield the results of "unknown species." This is an argument that skeptics and denialists will almost certainly use.

The existence of a new species has been accepted with less. With something near human, though, the standard is higher.

Exactly. People must understand that DNA testing involves many shades of grey, as opposed to being strictly black and white. Samples rarely yield conclusive, clear results. This is why it is left up to some of the most brilliant minds to tackle the task of testing and analyzing samples. I have complete confidence in Dr. Ketchum's ability to objectively and accurately analyze the samples that she has been given.

However, she is likely dealing with something completely unique that has yet to be discussed scientifically. She will have to be the 'pioneer' of this field, which will require her to make some bold statements and take a firm stance behind her opinions and results. She has to be careful though, because if she oversteps the line then her opinion might well become condemned.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that this is a very long, complex, and confusing situation. Lots of subtexts that many of us couldn't begin to understand.

Edited by Sallaranda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Silver Fox

If something were to be tested for DNA and it returned results, how could it be determined to be BF DNA if we have no control to compare it to? Wouldn't it just come back as unidentifiable? Doesn';t there have to be a confirmed BF sample for comparison? No confirmed BF = No confirmed sample. You have to prove existence to have a verifiable control.

Apparently Ketchum had quite a bit of so called BF biological material - hair, scat, along with blood, tissue and even bones and teeth. She tested all of this and some of it came back known species - not BF. But a lot of it was testing something different. Something with both the signs of human and animal DNA.

Eventually she gathered together a lot of the material that was creating a similar DNA profile and then began a full sequencing of the DNA code for that material. That is where they decided that it was in the Homo line but not human. OTOH, you are right, there is no BF to test it against, but they have a lot of material from all over North America that is yielding the same DNA profile, and it's not a profile of any known critter.

You don't need a base to test against anyway. Denisova DNA was sequenced out in toto and they had no Denisova to test it against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

I think Neanderthals have been over-humanized. At first they were mistakenly portrayed as really primitive, and now the pendulum has swung too much the other way. Remember that modern humans originated back in Africa only about 200K ago, and came out of Africa into Europe and elsewhere something like 50K ago (ok, maybe 60K but we don't know for sure). There are specific adaptations to endurance hunting that occurred only, as far as we know, in our own particular species. Things like less body hair, longer, finer limbs, etc. And we have had about that same amount of time using fire and tool use, which allowed our teeth and therefore our jaws and facial structure to become finer as well, to develop a chin, a high forehead etc. We really are quite a different type of human than Neanderthals. They were much more robust, much stronger and tougher, cold-adapted, close fighters and hunters. They didn't have sex roles like we do, that is, women and men as well as older kids all hunted and got close to the game. We have no idea if they even pair bonded like we do--women tending the hearth and the kids, men hunting and bringing back game. In fact the sort of things we hear about BF families (matrilineal clans, lone, roving males who mate based on size and dominance much like orangutans) well could be what Neanderthal family life was like. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. The whole scenario of gentle neanderthals burying their dead with flowers, and playing hand-made flutes, got debunked. They were tough as nails who may have trapped and killed their game by ambush and close combat, much as people describe bigfoot taking game.

In fact the whole idea of parallel adaptation but to different niches really resounds with me in that Neanderthals and humans were concurrent in Europe but only seemed to share genes in the Middle East. In Europe they seem to not have shared very many genes in spite of living at the same time and in the same place. A little, yes. Hello, does that sound familiar? The very rare NA tales of BF stealing mates and them coming home pregnant, having one baby that is a bit different but that is accepted into the tribe and whose BF genes get assimilated over time... very very infrequent occurrences, or not at all, over thousands or tens of thousands of years of living in the same areas.

The parallels are really striking, actually. Especially if you start looking at the bones and skulls and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...