The Carter Farm

[JDL]

JDL said:

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.

susi asks:

Is there somewhere on line where I can read or watch the interviews?

I would truly appreciate being able to see this for myself, BTW, I'm a believer, so I wish to watch for further verification about the BF species.Thank you for any and all help that you can offer...Hugs!

Here's the link to the version I found. 50 Years with Bigfoot

[southernyahoo]

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.

Things are changing around here Sasfooty I had the opportunity to ask a few questions too in the moderated Q&A thread. I certainly haven't been able to disprove what she says about bigfoot, in fact, some things seem downright uncanilly corroborative.

[Guest]

Because of it's subject, which is soemthing that you have strongly denied the existence of, for Years now...

I challenge you to dig through any post I've ever made on this topic and find me expressing the sentiment that an editor should refuse to consider a "bigfoot paper" for review. In contrast, you'll find posts from me again and again urging bigfooters to do exactly what Ketchum has allegedly done: write it up and submit it somewhere.

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

It sounds to me that we are back to the fact that *only* a BF body, or a captured BF will bring the scientific community on board about the species being genuine. That is really too bad..It seems to me that it matters *not* how many pictures or stories from very *credible* witnesses about the truth of BF will matter, and now I fear that none of the DNA, nor pictures will sway the hard core skeptics.

Only a body will bring the truth out to make pretty much everyone a believer, and do notice that I did not say *everyone*! Some skeptics will never believe IMVHO..They are too set on being skeptics.

Sallaranda said:

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.

Susi says:

Sounds like no matter what proof we have, again only a body will meet the demands of science.

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

Susi says! Yikes Twice! This kid was *beaten* and they feared the BF make would *get* her? Did they think that the BF would attack her, or rape her, or take her away as a companion?

What were they afraid of regarding the male BF?

Plus, You should never *beat* your kids, or did they spank her?

Does anyone know what happened here?

Edited May 9, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

It sounds to me that we are back to the fact that *only* a BF body, or a captured BF will bring the scientific community on board about the species being genuine. That is really too bad..It seems to me that it matters *not* how many pictures or stories from very *credible* witnesses about the truth of BF will matter, and now I fear that none of the DNA, nor pictures will sway the hard core skeptics.

Only a body will bring the truth out to make pretty much everyone a believer, and do notice that I did not say *everyone*! Some skeptics will never believe IMVHO..They are too set on being skeptics.

Sallaranda said:

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.

Susi says:

Sounds like no matter what proof we have, again only a body will meet the demands of science.

Further posting said:

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

Susi says:

Yikes Twice! This kid was *beaten* and they feared the BF make would *get* her? Did they think that the BF would attack her, or rape her, or take her away as a companion?

What were they afraid of regarding the male BF?

Plus, You should never *beat* your kids, or did they spank her?

Does anyone know what *really*happened here/there at the farm?

[Guest]

It sounds to me that we are back to the fact that *only* a BF body, or a captured BF will bring the scientific community on board about the species being genuine. That is really too bad..It seems to me that it matters *not* how many pictures or stories from very *credible* witnesses about the truth of BF will matter, and now I fear that none of the DNA, nor pictures will sway the hard core skeptics.

Only a body will bring the truth out to make pretty much everyone a believer, and do notice that I did not say *everyone*! Some skeptics will never believe IMVHO..They are too set on being skeptics.

Sallaranda said:

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.

Susi says:

Sounds like no matter what proof we have, again only a body will meet the demands of science.

Further posting said:

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

Susi says:

Yikes Twice! This kid was *beaten* and they feared the BF make would *get* her? Did they think that the BF would attack her, or rape her, or take her away as a companion?

What were they afraid of regarding the male BF?

Plus, You should never *beat* your kids, or did they spank her?

Does anyone know what *really*happened here/there at the farm?

The link provide contains quite a bit of info regarding the history of the Carter Family and their local BF's.

Now why out of all of the info provided do you insist on focusing on JDL's post #7? I'm curious as to why if there is any info to sensationalize you feel the need to do so?

JMO but it distracts from the topic as that account was just a fraction of the families experiences.

If alarming accounts are your interest please research the LBL accounts or Honobia.

For the most part the Carter Families experiences are fairly benign and typical to other reports filed by witnesses.You've stated many times you were a previous member of BFF. I find it hard to believe any of this info is new to you as it was extensively covered previously on the old BFF forum.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

[Guest Silver Fox]

Are we positive that BF is *not* a Neanderthal? We only have bones of that race, have they been tested to see if they could be from the Neanderthal species, or closely related? What does *between* the 2 species mean? Does the DNA lean more or closer towards either species?

I fear that *peer* review will become a joke because I fear no one will be willing to possibly throw their career away by being the first to do a peer review validating the BF species.

I believe that it will take a brave person to be the first to admit that the long ridiculed BF species really does *exist*, IMOVHO...

I don't know which one, sapiens or Neanderthal, it leans more towards. The idea that's between those two Homo varieties strikes me as insane. BF just seems too primitive.

I am very worried about the peer review process for this paper. Is it not done blind, though? No one will now who the peer review team is. So worries about careers may not be worrisome. And the editor of Nature is on record recently saying that Flores Man opens up the potential for other relict hominids, possibly even some that are still extant. Recall that Krantz and Meldrum had some of the BF papers turned down when they submitted them.

[JDL]

No, it's in the same light.

I suppose it depends on which bulb you're using and how much shadow it casts along with the light.

The thing I appreciate about this discourse is that you get some objective views from a variety of perspectives.

I'm a hard scientist, a licensed professional chemical engineer. I focus on applied science. Bigfoot isn't the kind of thing I would waste time on, except for the niggling little problem that I have seen and interacted with more than one. From 1970 to 1974 I had no clue what they were. All I knew was that they were human-like, but not quite human. At first I actually tried to convince myself that they were human, but in the face of repeated experience, this became impossible. It was five years from my first encounter before I ran across an excerpt from an old Army Corps of Engineers Manual that presented them as known fauna in the PNW. It was a bit dated, but there it was, a U.S. government document acknowledging a hair-covered, forest-dwelling, northwestern hominid.

So now I had a matching description from a government source. Case closed, right? But it really wasn't that simple. Just because a bunch of Army Corps of Engineers folks carving roads, dams, and other infrastructure into the virgin woods of the PNW in the first half of last century were so convinced the things existed that they unabashedly included them within their catalogue of regional fauna, it doesn't count for a hill of beans. Or does it?

Depends on the bulb.

Wouldn't you love to know what prompted them to independently document an otherwise unknown hominid? There have to be some accounts there. Probably more than a few.

Someday the world will have irrefutable evidence of their existence; and then the race will be on to observe and study them, to determine exactly what they are, exactly how they evolved, and exactly how they have interacted with our species over time, and other things. There will be a flood of reports from people who have had sightings they've been hesitant to report (and unfortunately there will be hoaxes upon hoaxes as well). The world will delve, among other things, into folkloric sources looking for consistency with observed data as a means of intuiting their past as well as their present.

My problem is that I'm already past that first step. I've observed them directly and I'm as curious about them as they were about me. I'm asking now some of those questions that the world will someday ask. Why are they so elusive? What do they need to elude - other than us? So I have a hypothesis: That they have developed some of their characteristics in response to the presence of a dominant and threatening species - us. Today we ignore them, because so many reasonable people tell us that they don't exist. But if my hypothesis has merit, then it wasn't always so. This is why I feel folklore is worth investigating.

Folklore is folklore, but sometimes folklore pans out and you get a nugget or two that is consistent. Where I grew up, the local native americans used to talk about a race of giant red-haired people they called the Si-Teh-Cah. No one believed them until they excavated Lovelock Cave and the evidence showed that the Paiute accounts of trapping them in a cave, shooting arrows into the cave, and starting a fire at its mouth to asphyxiate them were consistent. I'm not saying that the Si-Teh-Cah and bigfoot are the same, just using this as an example of how folklore has something to offer - and perhaps, discuss.

[Guest]

The link provide contains quite a bit of info regarding the history of the Carter Family and their local BF's.

Now why out of all of the info provided do you insist on focusing on JDL's post #7? I'm curious as to why if there is any info to sensationalize you feel the need to do so?

JMO but it distracts from the topic as that account was just a fraction of the families experiences.

If alarming accounts are your interest please research the LBL accounts or Honobia.

For the most part the Carter Families experiences are fairly benign and typical to other reports filed by witnesses.You've stated many times you were a previous member of BFF. I find it hard to believe any of this info is new to you as it was extensively covered previously on the old BFF forum.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't remember ever reading any of this anywhere, and I believe that I would remember it if I had.

This information may have been available before today, but somehow I totally missed it.

As a mother and a nurse,I have worked closely with abused children. I read this child was beaten, and then the parents are trying to ensure her safety from a young BF male. Why does the gender of the BF matter?

That's my question, and I asked was the reason because he could harm her, or what? I'm responding to that statement, plus I'm very distressed to read that this young woman was *beaten*.

In all honesty, You are the person who has written a provocative post, not I.

Edited May 9, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[JDL]

The link provide contains quite a bit of info regarding the history of the Carter Family and their local BF's.

Now why out of all of the info provided do you insist on focusing on JDL's post #7? I'm curious as to why if there is any info to sensationalize you feel the need to do so?

JMO but it distracts from the topic as that account was just a fraction of the families experiences.

If alarming accounts are your interest please research the LBL accounts or Honobia.

For the most part the Carter Families experiences are fairly benign and typical to other reports filed by witnesses.You've stated many times you were a previous member of BFF. I find it hard to believe any of this info is new to you as it was extensively covered previously on the old BFF forum.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

It wasn't my intent to focus on a sensational aspect. I pointed it out for the same reason Susie picked up on it. A person familiar with such situations can examine them from an informed perspective to judge the likelihood of their veracity based on the behaviors described. The description of the time Fox entered Jan's bedroom through the window when she was young was equally disturbing to me.

You are right, though, the vast majority of the book describes benign interactions. There is, however, a good measure of violence and implied threat, which I would expect in such circumstances. I think it is as perilous to ignore this as it is to focus on it exclusively.

[Guest]

Silver Fox said:

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 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.

Susi says:

If BF are as smart as most of us think, the BF would follow the humans that they were attached to. I've read about Dogs and Cats doing the same thing when their family moved away, and even tho the pets were in a nice new home, often they followed their previous owner.

The more I read about BF and their abilities the more amazed I become.

Edited May 9, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

I'm a hard scientist, . . . sometimes folklore pans out and you get a nugget or two that is consistent.

But for "bigfoot" to have its origin in the biblical folklore of the story of Esau you have to get pretty soft with your science. If you want to give any credibility to the story of Esau, then you must agree that Esau was the literal brother of Jacob. The biblical Esau would have to have been Homo sapiens. Yes, he is described as "hairy" and perhaps more muscular and outdoorsy than an average guy. So? By those tokens, we probably have several bigfoots reading BFF posts today. Huntster comes to mind . . .

Esau was a guy. He lived in a patriarchal, herding society a few thousand years ago. He wore clothes. He used fire and made tools. He kept flocks of sheep and goats. He used language. He understood such complex cultural ideas as "birthright" and the inheritance of land and material wealth. He cooked his food. He took a human wife when he left his homeland . . .

He wasn't bigfoot, and neither could his descendants become so between then and now.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Silver Fox said:

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 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.

Susi says:

If BF are as smart as most of us think, the BF would follow the humans that they were attached to. I've read about Dogs and Cats doing the same thing when their family moved away, and even tho the pets were in a nice new home, often they followed their previous owner.

The more I read about BF and their abilities the more amazed I become.

Honestly, I thought this was insane when I first heard it, but now I'm not so sure. Bottom line: I do not know what happened at the Carter farm! The cabin the Carters were staying in is even stranger. At least there there is a vast woods in the back where the BF's can hang out. The existing Carter farm is almost completely cleared. Where were the BF's hanging?

However, in the Kentucky habituation, a similar thing occurred. The people sold the house, and Erickson moved his team in. Bindernagel stayed there for a bit. The family moved a few miles away, and what do you know, the BF's packed up and moved to the new place and the saga continued. However, they were still around the old place a bit. Bindernagel actually saw one there. The researchers set up a trap to trap the BF's. They sneaked over by the new property and set up some camera traps and blinds up in the trees there. They got some good sneak footage of them over at the new place that way. The PhD biologist from Yale saw them on numerous occasions. They asked her if she believes in BF, and she said, "I would stake my life on it."

So apparently the BF's do pack up and move as their adopted humans do.

The one thing that was totally weird about the Kentucky habituation was the behavior of the dogs. When investigators first came there, the family was still there. They didn't see any BF's, but the family had several dogs. Each dog had his own doghouse. But all of the dogs had dug deep borrows under their doghouses. As soon as the sun set, each dog took off into his borrow and didn't come out until sunrise. There was something in the woods at night that had those dogs scared senseless.

[Guest]

JDL said:

I suppose it depends on which bulb you're using and how much shadow it casts along with the light.

Susi says:

ROF,LOL, You are too funny. Hugs to you from me, I needed something to laugh about, and you provided it!

[Guest]

Silver Fox said:

The one thing that was totally weird about the Kentucky habituation was the behavior of the dogs. When investigators first came there, the family was still there. They didn't see any BF's, but the family had several dogs. Each dog had his own doghouse. But all of the dogs had dug deep borrows under their doghouses. As soon as the sun set, each dog took off into his borrow and didn't come out until sunrise. There was something in the woods at night that had those dogs scared senseless.

Susi thinks:

Smart Dogs! If I had BF's running around at night where I was living, I'd *dig* a hole also, or let the researches stay there while I went home to mama..

Edited May 9, 2011 by SweetSusiq