Jump to content
Guest JudasBeast

The Carter Farm

Recommended Posts

Guest LAL

I think Jan did send a hair sample to Fahrenbach, but I don't know what happened to it from there. Hopefully Fahrenbach had some samples he could provide for DNA work, as he has said he has done in the past. Oh what a few hairs could do for her story, provided the DNA actually provides the elusive proof.

The only hairs she sent him that I've read about turned out to be bovine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

The only hairs she sent him that I've read about turned out to be bovine.

In May 2004, Dr. Fahrenbach analyzed hairs that Janice claims to have pulled from Fox’s wrist, and the scientist’s conclusion was this: “The morphology of this hair is clearly primate in character, all standard mammals of N. America are ruled out, and the remaining confounding variable – human hair – is not similar to this hair at all, in that the density of pigmentation far exceeds that of the blackest human hair. These observations provide a legitimizing underpinning to the factual details reported by Jan Coy (Carter) (as co-author) in the book by Mary Green, deviant interpretations thereof notwithstanding.â€

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/manimal-2/

Edited by Sasfooty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

His initial finding was that they were sas hairs but they turned out to be bovine.

I had egg on my face on another forum on that one. RayG set me straight. Dr. Fahrenbach has explained they're very similar but that didn't help much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sallaranda

How can you mistake an ape's hair for a cow's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Silver Fox

I get my hopes up, then shot down, then up again, I do believe that I'm developing a split personality often called schizophrenia...

I cannot see the peer reviewers risking everything they have, their respect and reputation, by claiming that the DNA is from a BF rather than an *unknown*.

Schizophrenia is not split personality. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness characterized by hallucinations, delusions and thought disorder. I can tell right now, by reading your posts, that you don't have it. It's that easy to rule out.

The peer reviewers don't have to agree with the conclusions of the paper. They just have to agree that the methodology is scientifically sound. That is it. They could still disagree that BF exists; it's not a problem at all to believe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Schizophrenia is not split personality. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness characterized by hallucinations, delusions and thought disorder. I can tell right now, by reading your posts, that you don't have it. It's that easy to rule out.

The peer reviewers don't have to agree with the conclusions of the paper. They just have to agree that the methodology is scientifically sound. That is it. They could still disagree that BF exists; it's not a problem at all to believe this.

Silver, You are a sweetie. I was being humorous, but I am thrilled to realize that I truly am not a Schizophrenic. What is the term for having total belief one day in BF, then the Carter Farm article posted here totally blows my belief away, then I read that people I trust here do believe that the Carter farm does have BF living there,so I'm back to sorta believing in the Carter farm story. :(

However, I sincerely do thank you for your post. :wub:

I am beyond thrilled to read about the fact that the peer review *only* has to agree that the science is sound.

They do not have to agree to the reality of BF, just say that the science used is competent and correct.

Wow! I have hope again thanks to you Silver Fox.

Thank you for posting that info.

Edited by SweetSusiq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Schizophrenia is not split personality. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness characterized by hallucinations, delusions and thought disorder. I can tell right now, by reading your posts, that you don't have it. It's that easy to rule out.

The peer reviewers don't have to agree with the conclusions of the paper. They just have to agree that the methodology is scientifically sound. That is it. They could still disagree that BF exists; it's not a problem at all to believe this.

You can't diagnose schizophrenia from someone posting on the internet.

A. There are varying degrees of schizoprenia

B. Schizophrenia can be controlled by medication, which would make you unable to diagnose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am beyond thrilled to read about the fact that the peer review *only* has to agree that the science is sound.

They do not have to agree to the reality of BF, just say that the science used is competent and correct.

Well . . . it'd be highly unusual for a peer reviewer to agree that everything had been done correctly yet still disagree on the conclusion drawn from the analysis. If that happened, it would be incumbent upon the reviewer to explain how the data should have been interpreted. If the editor agreed that a wrong conclusion had been reached, that'd torpedo the paper for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You can't diagnose schizophrenia from someone posting on the internet.

A. There are varying degrees of schizoprenia

B. Schizophrenia can be controlled by medication, which would make you unable to diagnose it.

Guys, I do not have schizophrenia. I have a sense of humor, and that's it. My physician hubby would recognize any problems, trust me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

Deleted because I shouldn't have said it.

Edited by Sasfooty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
What do you researchers and scientists think?

I think the DNA will have to be unique in such a way that no scientist could find the same sequences in any known population of humans or other great apes, and yet be most closely related to that group like the Denisova X-woman DNA.. Find that in hair samples that also demonstrate a unique morphology among that same group and you will sway scientific opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

The only hairs she sent him that I've read about turned out to be bovine.

Do you have any reference analyses for this LAL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Do you have any reference analyses for this LAL?

Here's something that was posted on the old BFF reposted on JREF. Maybe Ray has more.

Originally posted by Tsiatko May 21 2004, 11:51 PM

Over a year ago after hearing so much about the Book that 50 years with Bigfoot I thought I would see if Marry Green would send me some of the hair she and Jan Coy say thye had from the Carter farm. They claimed to have a lot of hair and I had heard that Dr. Fahrenbach said it matched his samples of Sasquatch hair. First I asked Henner if it was true. He said yes. So I e-mailed Mary Green and asked if I could get a sample. She was very nice and agreed to send me the samples. The reason I wanted the sample was for my own research and to better understand what to look for in Sasquatch hair. After getting the samples I gave them to Henner and asked him to take a look at them. I didn't tell him where they came from. just that they were given to me. Here is what he said about them.

Dear John,

I looked at the hair today and it does not immediately fill me with confidence as to its being of sasquatch origin. It has a diameter of about 50 µm (ok for BF) and is exceedingly heavily pigmented to the point of being totally opaque (not ok for BF). As for a medulla, it is not a standard cellular one, as in most mammals, but rather subdued in its organization to the degree that one can visualize it at all (sort of ok for BF). What makes me suspicious is that the hair has very coarse pigment and some large pigment clumps that I associate with bovine hair and sometimes with bear, though bear has a different medulla. I have no purported sasquatch hair that looks like this, so I rather err on the side of caution and call it probable bovine, unless you have very compelling reason to rule that out. The batches in both baggies were identical, if that's any help.

My best, Henner.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...