Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

99 Responses to “Carter Farm Update”

1. grandmamoses responds: June 25th, 2009 at 3:35 am

   Mystery man states: “Photoexpert made a very valid point. Even if these things are some sort of interdimensional entities, when they are in our universe, they would be subject to our physics and natural laws. This means they can be photographed, and they can leave behind physical evidence.”

   Actually, mystery man is guessing, as is Photoexpert. Neither appear to have the qualifications to proclaim that everything in our universe is subject to our physics and our natural laws. From my own personal field observations, GRAVITY does not apply to creatures in the higher dimensions to the same degree that it applies to the poor souls stuck in man’s dimension. Once you take gravity away, then you have tracks that start and tracks that end. Mmmmm! Now where have I heard of that mystery before? Why of course it is one of the great unexplained Bigfoot mysteries. As Jeremy Wells also tells a story of finding a single track, he failed to observe that the single track both started and ended in the same place. There were no other tracks. So he failed to be sufficiently observant to take notice of this important detail. The point here is that persons who are used to studying flesh and blood animals, only look for evidence of a flesh and blood animal. They either block out all other evidence and conclusions, or in their infinite wisdom they PROCLAIM that other possible conclusions do not obey the laws of physics and therefore are not valid.

   Also from my own personal field observations, other creatures can make considerable amount of noise while being within arms reach, and still be completely invisible and thus cannot be photographed with ordinary cameras. Thermal cameras are likely to be able to photograph invisible creatures, when the heat that they give off falls within the perception range of that camera. We cannot see invisible creatures because the light that they give off does not fall within the sensitivity range of our optical system. It is as simple as that. Just because we cannot see it, does not mean that it does not exist. Orbs can be readily photographed for instance, yet most people have difficulty seeing them with their naked eyes. The Bigfoot on Carter’s old farm that she sold and moved away from, likely had the ability to be invisible anytime that they so chose, if they were anything like the Bigfoot around my parts. Invisibility on demand makes for some pretty compelling evidence that there were no Bigfoot at Carter’s old farm.

   And just in case nobody noticed lately, all the great Bigfoot evidence and researchers are one by one being lethally attacked, in order to discredit them for all time. MK Davis most recently attempted to discredit half of the greatest names in Bigfoot research in one fell swoop, but most failed to notice since his interview was on an unpopular blogtalk show. Here we similarly have an anonymous poster, who has completely failed to prove their own qualifications on the subject matter, or timestamp their assertations, and those that are eager to discredit a fellow researcher jump at the opportunity to accept what this Mr. X says without question. That is bogus science from the get go.

2. wuffing responds: June 25th, 2009 at 5:59 am

   PhotoExpert – a comment on your interesting post. You wrote “As my screen name implies, I am an expert in optical physics. I can go on and on about Wave Theory, Partical Theory, Quantum Theory, String Theory, etc. But I would not want to bore the layman with technical jibberish.”
   Thank you for classifying us as “laymen” – we certainly wouldn’t recognise jibberish if it jumped off the page at us, and “Partical Theory” is way over our heads.

   One thing is for certain though, if we see it with our eyes, we are able to photograph it,
   This is almost true, but not in the sense I think you meant it. “Seeing” is done in the brain, which processes the electrical signals generated by the eye, but the brain can also interpret other electrical signals NOT originating in the eye in the same way. Its called an hallucination. Wikipedia explains it like this:
   “A hallucination, in the broadest sense, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus. In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space.”

   So you can’t always photograph what you see.

3. Ragnar responds: June 25th, 2009 at 6:02 am

   Has anyone got a good location for the farm? I think it would be interesting if we could find it on Google maps and see if it really has just a trailer or two and a couple of acres.

4. mystery_man responds: June 25th, 2009 at 8:18 am

   Grandmamoses- Yes I’m guessing, but I’ve already admitted I don’t know for sure about what is going on.

   Are you saying that you are not guessing at all? I don’t think anyone is necessarily qualified when dealing with something that we know so little about (extra dimensional beings and invisibility on demand), outside of theorizing, except you apparently. Why, you seem to know everything there is to know about them right down to all of the processes involved and how they work.

   That’s great for you. Please forgive us lowly people who actually have yet to learn the intricacies of inter dimensional travel and invisibility.

   The rest of us have to resort to learning how these things work the old fashioned way, by learning through proper scientific processes what is really going on rather than making it up as we go along. I have to rely on evidence which has yet to be produced except for fancy physics hypotheses that most people, even physicists I might add (except maybe you apparently) don’t necessarily know a whole lot about.

   You seem to be very quick to jump on those that have their doubts, and to criticize those who think they know everything, yet the only one claiming that they do is you and the Carter farm supporters.

   What you are doing is bending untested and unknown hypothetical physics to conform to your view of how things should work and twisting these things to serve as “evidence” that you are right. That is bogus science. I’ve said I don’t know, and I wouldn’t know until I had evidence which is a completely acceptable thing to do in the real world.

   No, invisibility on demand is NOT evidence if you cannot show whatsoever that it is in fact happening to others who can corroborate that. Maybe it is happening but I have no way of knowing that anymore than I can know that there isn’t an invisible dragon living in my backyard. You hide behind it could be this or could be that without accepting the could bes that you don’t like or don’t fit into your preconceived notions. THAT is bogus science.

   I entertain the notion that these things could happen, but I think we would have to know more about them before making that call one way or the other. I don’t know what’s going on. Maybe it is inter-dimensional beings, but I would need more to make that assumption. I’m fairly sure they would be photographable, but maybe I’m wrong. At least I can say that, whereas you make no possibility at all that you could ever be wrong. In this way, I suspect that I really want to find out the real truth more than you, who have already made up your mind.

   Bogus science? I’m not sure I really know how to respond to that. Why should we jump at the chance to believe the Carters? Believing you at your word without any evidence at all to back it up sounds like pretty bogus science to me. This isn’t a playground match of “Is not!” “Is too!” This is meant to be a serious forum for trying to get to the bottom of these things in what I hope would be a scientific way. Nothing you have said has indicated to me that this is the way you treat this subject matter.

   I haven’t ridiculed anyone. I have merely stated my skepticism which is a natural part of science. I have expressed doubts in an unproven hypothesis, which is a perfectly rational part of science. I must say I am starting to doubt your own knowledge of just how science works.

   And what is the mention of MK Davis and the “lethal attacks” on all Bigfoot researchers? Where did that red herring come from? I am seriously curious about what that has to do with the matter at hand or why you decided to make that particular accusation except maybe to be evasive.

   I am serious about cryptozoology, and I am not some anonymous poster here as I’m sure many here could tell you. I take this subject very seriously and try to contribute what I can. Now normally I am quite temperate, but your offensive accusations of me trying to discredit people while simultaneously trying to discredit me and pouncing on me have gone beyond the pale. I have done no such thing.

   You are issuing close mindedness of your own brand disguised as open mindedness which is one of the worst kinds in my opinion.

   scrambledeggman- If you think I’m close minded about this, then you are not reading my posts very carefully. I merely don’t feel that we should take this at face value at this point. You have taken what I said and presented it out of context.

   Of course I’m skeptical, there has been not a shred of evidence. This is how it works in the scientific world. Anybody at all should rightfully be skeptical of these events under the current circumstances, and if those researchers that are so convinced have any sort of scientific qualifications at all, then that means they have seen something that we haven’t and all they have to do is make that available for others to see. Simple really.

   I have no problem with this being inter dimensional beings if that is what they are. But why on earth is anyone to be considered close minded for requesting evidence? Am I close minded for not accepting the tooth fairy? What is being directed towards me is a perversion of how science operates.

   Talk about bogus science. This thread is starting to become redolent of it.

5. vampchick21 responds: June 25th, 2009 at 9:19 am

   grandmamoses, invisible creatures? Could you provide a list of these invisible creatures?

   Also, orbs. Orbs are, for the most part, dust or moisture particles reflecting the light, occassionally an insect. My main area of research and interest is in the Paranormal (as in, ghosts, hauntings, poltergeists, etc). You really can’t use orbs to prove your point, since the majority of serious Paranormal Researchers agree that orbs are not spirits nor proof of spirit activity.

   I’m also not quite buying this whole interdimensional being theory. Because even then, you would have to provide some solid proof to back it up (hence the term theory as opposed to fact).

   And who exactly is/has been under attack and facing attempts to discredit? The first I heard of it was in your post. You might want to back up that statement as well.

6. DWA responds: June 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am

   I agree, m_m. Some enlightened commentary on here, but some, er, pretty thick air too.

   Well, come on over my place. I’m having pancakes; gonna set a few out with a game cam. Gonna habituate me some flesh’n’blood. 😀

7. DWA responds: June 25th, 2009 at 9:51 am

   cmgrace: thanks for the kind words, and no need to paint yourself as “small-minded” here.

   Like you, I think it’s a critter we’re looking for here. I’m so sure of it that, until that avenue has been explored to my satisfaction, I WON’T consder something that I see less likely based on life experience and what I know about known animals, absent compelling evidence that I should. (So see? You’re more open-minded than me. 😉 ) The accounts read like animal encounters. Encounters, in fact, with apes. Too many people who almost assuredly haven’t seen an ape outside a zoo otherwise are describing not only ape appearance, but ape behavior. The evidence says, copiously and in big letters: CRITTER. PROBABLY APE. And folks who entertain otherwise aren’t showing any acquaintance with the evidence, which is markedly bereft of shape shifting, saucer riding, orbing and take-me-to-your-leader.

   Wanting to go the critter route first isn’t small-minded. It embodies the culling essential to proper scientific endeavor. Our species’ experience of the physical plane says…well, that saying about walking like a duck and looking like a duck and quacking like a duck seems to be constantly borne out by experience. When it’s not, the explanation leaves no doubt that we have the exception that proves the rule, rather than a new rule.

   So. Let’s look for a duck.

   Right. You know what I mean. 😉

8. Jeremy_Wells responds: June 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am

   Grandmamoses,
   The single track I refer to was on a hillock of pine needles in the middle of a soupy swamp. It was the one place a clear track could be placed and not filled in with sediment or just invisible under coffee colored water.
   I also never claimed that was “proof”. Just compelling circumstantial evidence.
   Scrambledeggman,
   The skepticism about the Carter farm doesn’t come from my initial viewing of it, but from continued distractions apparent in these threads and the “we have hairs/we don’t have hairs we will show you” flip flops.
   It’s the overall history that has made me come to that conclusion. You will also note all of the individuals you quote have said the personal attacks are rude, but the evidence still doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

9. DWA responds: June 25th, 2009 at 11:21 am

   scrambledeggman: Um, let’s see here.

   In the face of all those awful, unseemly scofitical nonbeliever quotes up there, if I had the proof, what would I do?

   I would, um, sheesh this is hard…wait a minute here…I…would….dang!….um…..

   …offertheprooftherethat’sit!

   You know what “the obvious reason” for that “obvious reason” statment is? Well, all those awful unseemly scoftics up there know it, and so do I, and you know how we know it? Our experience. Every single bingle gingle zingle time we hear oh, yeah, I have the proof, but I’m not sharing it, what happens? People keep laughing, and the episode fizzles. They try to get folks to kowtow to them, and folks say: um, just call me when you show the proof.

   If I were the one being laughed at, you’d see what I had. Then, you’d stop laughing.

   Or, you’d never hear anything from me about my experience in the very first place, because I had my proof, and, well, good luck to you in getting yours.

   People that run this scam don’t understand that we see they’re putting the cart before the horse. It’s not them we’re laughing at, or their alleged proof. It’s this same ol’ shell game, one more time.

   See, when scientists have proof, you don’t see it until it’s packaged and ready for presentation. They don’t tease; the truth is what they’re interested in, and sure some notoriety or recognition too, which they know damn well doesn’t come until the proof is in the bag. The paper is in the journals, nicely tied up with the corroborating evidence. And here are the photos and video, and the diagrams to show how we connected the dots.

   Because that is how people who have the proof show you.

   Like jeremy_wells, I had my own track find, in the California Siskiyou in 1986. The light was so dim that a photo with my equipment was out of the question. But they were tracks. At least I never saw anything in my life that looked so much like tracks that wasn’t tracks. Couldn’t make out toes or other detail. But they had a hominid shape to them; they were impressed about a quarter-inch deep in pine duff we couldn’t dent with lug soles and heavy packs; and if they were tracks, well, only one thing I’ve heard of could have made them.

   So. Who would the lousy photos have gone to? In 1986? I knew the USFS was a waste of time. BFRO was a year old, and I’d never heard of ’em.

   But you know? I could be wrong in that assessment. I mean, I could be. I couldn’t call it proof. My wife, to this day, says, oh yeah, they were bigfoot tracks. Me? Well if you read me here, you know I don’t have my proof yet. It’ s just one more thing that seems not to be accounted for in full by North American faunal models. To me. And definitely to my wife. To you? Well, you just got one person’s story. One more thing.

   And it’s one more thing than I see here. And these folks want their names up in lights.

   Inclined to be kind, I’d refer our friends to my post above and tell them, it may be real to you, but the rest of us, not seeing it, need evidence. Don’t say a thing about you.

   Just saying.

   If you don’t have the goods don’t hang out the shingle.

10. scrambeledeggman responds: June 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    I still stand my my comment that as far as the Carter Farm incident is concerned, the Bigfoot community is closed minded about this story.

    However, since I would like to actually contribute to knowledge of this report (Instead of just calling Janice “Crazy”), I submit to you what I think is the remains of the Carter Farm. (based on kd37354 description of a dilapidated property) If this is the actual property, I can see why kd37354 is pissed. I would not want that crap pile on my street either.

    Google Maps Image.

    Anyway, if you zoom out, you can see there is lots of forested area to the east. Plenty of cover…. Also, no comment on the Sasquatch looking dude in the picture… He looks like a scary one to me!

    kd37354, is this the Carter Farm?

11. Andrew Minnesota responds: June 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    m_m, DWA and Jeremy_Wells thank you for keeping up the sensible comments. scrambeledeggman if you’ve ever taken a basic research course in college you’d understand the need for evidence. You’re entitled to believe whatever you would like but it is not harsh of someone to want evidence before they are willing to believe such claims.

    Many of the comments here are from individuals that are very open minded, but you must understand that the carter claims are rather grand, and somewhat more difficult to believe than saying you are open to the creature simply existing. This is where the demand of evidence comes in if they have it show it to us. Legitimate researchers do not withhold evidence especially when it can be used to back up their claims. It makes no sense that researchers would have evidence, say that the stories are true but withhold the evidence, it simply doesn’t make sense. You seem to think they wouldn’t present evidence because it would be ridiculed by others who, but if it is genuine and convincing it should be able to withstand scientific scrutiny and prove their findings.

    vampchick21 thank you for responding to the orb comment, am of the same mind on it. grandamamoses I am curious as to what credentials you have; physics degrees and such. Anything that lets us know that you are truly knowledgeable on such things. You have called into question others credentials and I am curious as to yours.

12. GCPickle responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    ” The house is in a state of disrepair, and there are now two rusted trailers, as well as a small barn that is falling apart, and garbage, rusted and junked cars, and poor starving animals, many that are on chains, and we can hear them being beaten and abused. ”

    My question is: Why are you sitting at the computer, putting people down, when you should be calling your local humane society and reporting said abuse?

13. DWA responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    Andrew Minnesota: saying thanks allows me to make yet another comment. HATE it when that happens.

    I said in my last post: “See, when scientists have proof, you don’t see it until it’s packaged and ready for presentation.”

    That’s totally wrong.

    You don’t see it. Sure. But you also don’t hear about it. You don’t smell it; you don’t sense it; YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THEY’RE WORKING ON IT until they roll it out. No biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig drum roll while the magician rolls up his sleeve. No “we will shock the world.” No “we may be hicks, but we done got us a Bigfeet!”

    NOTHING. Until: hi, we’d like to show you something, and everybody goes WHOOOAAAAA. They even have the artists’ conceptions done, man! Those damn scientists do it to me so often I am flat getting SICK of it. Stop it, dude, I have a HEART here! I’m trying to make it to old age! Stop sneaking up on me like that!

    This has sort of become my thing, and probably many of our thing. My litmus test for whether you have proof is: do I see the proof, now?

    We’ve gotten used to the “we have proof!” schtick, and know what it means.

    And it’s not: we have it!

    It’s: we’re MILKING it for all it’s worth.

    If crypto is going to become a science (and I know the Carters aren’t zoologists, but still), cryptos have to present their info the way scientists do.

    Gather the evidence. Draw the conclusion.

    Then say hi, we’d like to show you something. Then SHOW us.

14. scrambeledeggman responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Hi,

    Yes, I believe in evidence. People said “Where is the evidence”. Well, the book presents lots of evidence. The book that we are all talking about, “50 years with Bigfoot: Tennessee Chronicles of Co-Existance” presents much evidence. Evidence presented included 2 blurry blobsquatch pictures, footprint casts, lots of poop, tree breakings, tree limbs stacked in teepee formation, a book full of alleged Bigfoot words, and a CD with Janice pronouncing over 200 of these alleged Bigfoot words.

    This is the evidence that is presented in the book. Somehow, all this evidence has been ignored, or poo-pooed for some reason or another. I am not sure when or how this happened, but obviously it did, as nobody seems to be mentioning this evidence. Does anyone have the history of how all these pieces of evidence got debunked, as I would like to know.

    In conclusion, I am just saying lets keep this story open and not be too hasty in closing the door on it as is what seems to be happening on this blog.

    Is this really too much to ask?

15. mystery_man responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    grandmamoses- I actually think I owe you an apology. I realize now that perhaps I misread your post. I thought you were talking about me when it seems you were talking about this mystery mail directed at the Carters. Sometimes in this type of forum it is hard to discern who people are directing their comments at and since you opened with me, I made that erroneous connection at the end of your post. I can see that I was not the anonymous poster you were referring too, but rather the subject of this thread.

    I made a mistake and I overreacted. I sincerely apologize for that. That was not conducive to the discussion on my part.

16. PhotoExpert responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Wow! This is really getting interesting now. I appreciate the responses by all. And I will comment back on a few of them, but where do I start? Do I start with the positive or negative responses? I think I’ll start off with the positive comments since I am an optimistic person.

    Mystery_man–You are always logical in your thought process and as you already know, I am a fan of your posts. I thought about talking about photographing things that we can not see as well. But if I did that, I would have to explain to the paranormal believers why water particles and dust are not true “orbs”. I did not want to open that can of worms since the paranormal camp is having difficulty in understanding why we can actually photograph things we see in our dimension. I did not want to go there! LOL But like minds think alike. I thought about it and you took it a step further. You made all valid points. Nice job! (As always)

    Fhqwhgads–Nice to meet you! Ah, do not worry, if you stay at this blog long enough, there will be a need for a physicist with a background in computational statistical mechanics. Just be patient and your skills will be needed. Trust me, something will come up related to your field and you will have your chance. We will need your services! I understand what you are trying to say about the argument by the paranormal camp, them saying BF is a spiritual being and it imposes it’s image in our brain, etc. I get that attempt to circumvent the logical argument of facts and physics. But I can come right back and defeat that argument by saying, If one buys into that premise of the paranormal camp, if BF were a spiritual being that imposed it’s image in their brain, how did they hand garlic to an impression on the brain? Wouldn’t the garlic just fall to the ground as you handed it to the spiritual BF you perceived being there? Wouldn’t the garlic be there the next day and so actually, the spiritual BF never took the garlic in the first place? It is one or the other! They can not have it both ways. Thus, it refutes their argument and to some extent, along with their premise for the argument. They can not have it both ways! It is a mutually exclusive argument based on the stories coming from Carter.

    Andrew Minnesota–You did add to the thread! You let the readers here at Cryptomundo, that you were in agreement with other posters here. You posted as a sign of support. Your post was appreciated!

    And now to address and correct the not so positive comments or negatively implied posts:

    scrambeledeggman–LOL Are you implying that the reply posts to Bill N or Bill E’s post, is why people are not forthcoming with evidence? Are you implying that this is the obvious reason that the evidence is not shared? LOL You have got to be kidding me! I’ll address the elephant in the room, even if others do not. First of all, my post was not off the cuff. I have read the book and followed the stories and have followed BF sightings for decades. So I am not emotionally responding to Bill N’s post. I made my response based on carefully weighed evidence or in this case, “lack of evidence” on the Carter story. I believe mystery_man and others already pointed those facts out to you. You need to read more carefully. Actually, I believe in BF. I believe that BF is a real cryptid beast. I also am open to possibilities that BF may be in the paranormal or multidimensional realm although that is highly improbable, based on the evidence to date. However, it is only a possibility because there is no overwhelming evidence for that case. There is little to no evidence for that case to be made, as of yet. But I leave open that possibility. There is a case that BF is a real flesh and blood creature. The evidence points to that. However, because of that multitude of evidence, I am not going to buy into the multidimensional aspect of BF or the spiritual or paranormal aspect of BF because there is no evidence there. There are people with psychological and mental disorders who do see things that others can not. There is mass hysteria and sightings of things under mass hysteria. There is never any physical evidence for these sightings either. Thus, delusional people who see things that are not there, or make things up in their mind and convince themselves that these sightings were real events, falls into the same category for me and others as the explanation for BF being a spiritual or multidimensional creature. The proof is not there! There is no evidence to little evidence to make the Carter story feasible in my opinion and in the opinion of so many others. Is BF a real flesh and blood creature? Not only is that possible but it is highly probable! Is BF a spiritual creature or multidimensional creature? Yes, I am open to that possibility, however, it is not probable! So you see, I am open minded. But I am also sane and logical. The Carter story requires more investigation and certainly a lot more proof, any proof! There is none! And when you ask to see it or for posters such as Bill N to supply it, none is forthcoming. What you do get is the canned answer, “It is not forthcoming for obvious reasons”. Well, for people in the Carter camp or paranormal/spiritual camp, the obvious reason is that their evidence would be easily refuted and not hold up to scrutiny. This is the same reason people do not believe the story in the scientific camps, for obvious reasons, the Carter camp has no evidence or proof to present because the story is fabricated or imagined or a delusion. Look, I am open minded but I am also an objective realist. If you have proof and it is good proof, present it, sir! If not, then “your belief in a story” is just that, a belief. Beliefs are just that. They are what a person deems to be true but the facts might not manifest those beliefs to be fact. And all the other posters you mentioned in your post, the majority of them are not believing the Carter story. I, they, never said one ill word towards the Carters. We hold nothing against the story, except no evidence was presented. If you go back and read my first response to the letter that the neighbor sent in, you will see that I said that the neighbor talked condescendingly about the Carter family. I felt that was unnecessary and irrelevant to the case. The only relevence it did hold, which would be allowed in a court of law, is that the history of the Carters as described by the neighbor, shows their character. Even judges and courts of law, allow the character of witnesses to come into questiona and that is considered part of objective evidence. We must take into account, the character of the primary witness in this case of BF, and that is Carter herself. Therefore, the letter and characterization of Carter, by the neighbor, is relevant in this case. I personally would not have taken such digs at the Carter family, but it was deemed necessary by the neighbor and would have been allowable in a court of law. So case closed for me as well as the other posters you mentioned by name in your post. Consider the readers here the jury. We heard all the evidence presented and our opinions were what they were. Our conclusion was not based on “feelings” or “how we felt”. Our conclusion was based on facts, witnesses, credibility of those witnesses, and any evidence presented such as tracks, hair samples, photographs. There was little to no evidence to support Carter’s claims. Oh, except for “evidence is being withheld for obvious reasons”. LOL Seriously, if this were a murder trial and the evidence could set the alleged killer free, do you think any jury would buy the claim that they have evidence to present of behalf of the Defendant but that same evidence might convict him, so it is not being presented? LOL We weighed the facts and the jury made it’s decision. Now don’t try to group us all in the same boat as a bunch of closed minded individuals. That is not the case and would be untrue. That is what you implied in your post. As an objective observer, I am insulted by that. Don’t go around throwing insults here without the facts to back them up. You have been corrected!

    wuffing–You need to read a bit more carefully before posting. I stated in my post, I do not wish to bore the layman. If you are a layman, you might have been bored by my posting things over your head. No offense should be taken in that statement. But if we take the converse of that statement, my intention was not to insult the experts but merely, not talk over the heads of people that may not have an advanced grasp of physics. No insult was intended. If you truly have a grasp of physics, you would not have been insulted by my statement. Learn to read more carefully! I did not write, for all the layman here, other than PhotoExpert… I think people like DWA, mystery_man, and Loren got the essence of my statement. It would only have been offensive to those people who do not read carefully. However, when you are posting at a public forum like Cryptomundo, there are housewives, children, creative people who lack technical knowledge, etc. That is not a deficiency on anyone’s part. Heck, if I was at an artist’s forum, I would be the layman and I would not want experts talking over my head about the subtleties of oil paint versus acrylic paint. That would be over my head. I am an intelligent person, but that would be over my head and bore me to death or to another forum. I was being civil minded and sociable in doing that. But if you like, we can discuss in detail the effects of constructive antinodal interference as it pertains to Wave Theory and bore the crap out of the people here, just to appease your ego! Brother! I will waste no more time on explaining what is obvious and appreciated by most posters here. But I will move on to your next point, which I am partially in agreement with. We can not photograph hallucinations. And that is exactly my point. If an entity manifests itself in our “physical realm”, which is what I was talking about if you read my post more carefully, then we can photograph. Mental images, hallucinations, etc, are in the psychological and mental realm and therefore can not be photographed. And what you stated, is exactly what I was implying. You got it! Congratulations! We agree! So if the sighting at the Carter trailer could not be photographed, then what was it? Maybe what you just implied! Wuffing, you need to take the “wuff” out of your comments. Then again, it is your screen name.

    Grandmamoses–In case you haven’t noticed, we are all here at a Cryto site and that means we are all a little open to possibilities. If I claimed to know everything in the universe, then I would be God or a supreme being. No such claims have been forthcoming. But as a semi-intelligent person, not living in a fantasyland where everything is possible and therefore possible, and being sane, I do know that all objects in our world, have to operate under the same laws of physics and nature. To use your point, let’s say that there is some abnormality that takes place and does not exactly operate under the laws of physics in this dimension. Well, then it would not be unnatural. It would be part of this dimension and therefore acting accordingly under the laws of physics that we need to explain further. So yes, I can say with certainty, that any being, even a spiritual being or paranormal being, would be subject to the constraints or laws governing physics in our world. Sorry, but that is a fact. What you stated is just wishful thinking. Would you be surprised to learn that I am spiritual? Would you be surprised to learn that I believe in Multidimensional possibilities? Sure, it is certainly possible and even probable that more things are taking place than we realize. Sure, BF could be in another dimension and pops in and out of this dimension. That is certainly a possibility. I am reluctant to dismiss that theory which is your theory. But I am also a realist and use the scientific approach. It that theory is to hold true, it or parts of it must be proven. And that proof must come in the way of evidence. And one MUST also consider ALL of the evidence and not just parts or some of the evidence to make their theory hold water. You can’t have it both ways. If you feel BF is a spiritual being, you are entitled to that belief. But to make it true or a fact, you must present proof. And you present little to no proof that can be documented. If BF is a multidimensional being, the same thing applies. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and try to support your theory, your own evidence by your own witness does not hold up to scrutiny. If BF were a spiritual being or multidimensional being, explain the garlic being given and taken away by Fox when Carter gave him the garlic. You can’t have it both ways. If that happened, for a period of time, even minutes, Fox was acting in accordance with the physical laws of our dimension and was able to take the garlic from Carter. Both were acting within the laws of physics in our dimension. So Fox could have been photographed in that period of time with clear and sharp images. That did not happen. No proof was forthcoming. That would have been definitive proof. But conveniently, the creature knows what a camera is and morphs at that exact second. Sure it does! It would have been better evidence to make the story sound credible if there was not any evidence supporting it. Wait, that is what happened! LOL So you see my point here! Don’t throw out your theory. It is a good theory. But it is only that. You must document your proof of your theory. And you have not offered one iota, one single piece of “credible” and objective evidence for proof of your theory. I will down you or your theory. But I will not believe what you believe based on no evidence! I am open to your theory because I know it as a possibility to be potentially true. But I find it unbelievable and not true because of lack of evidence. Therefore, although possible, what you claim is highly improbable. Plus, there is evidence to the contrary and multiple sightings, hair samples, tracks, etc, they would refute your theory in it’s entirety. I am leaning that way as are many others here at Cryptomundo. Belief is faith. I will not try to convince you otherwise. But proof and evidence are facts that need to be taken into account, even in your theory. This is what makes theory, fact!

17. cryptidsrus responds: June 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Interesting conversation, to say the least!!!

    While reading all of the comments, I kept thinking—
    “Are we going to start talking trash about people’s MOTHERS next???”

    Next, actually, is—“I know YOU are, but what am I?” 🙂

    So…

    1) I will come out and say I have no idea as to whether the Carter sisters are lying or not. I ultimately “tend” to think (and some people may call my answer a “copout” and “irrelevant to the discussion” but that’s the way it is) that the “truth” may lie somewhere in the middle. There may have been “contact”, but not the way they “described” it. Maybe certain things got “added” in the telling. I don’t know. But this I DO know:

    2) ScottAR got it right near the top of the page when he said
    “I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at these reports with a critical eye, but lets be mindful of our language, so we don’t discourage others from reporting what they have seen.”

    I agree totally to that. Amen, brother.

    3) Continuing on that vein, I also think that injecting slanderous, unsubstantiated comments about people’s marital status, financial situations and legitimacy of children is not only uncalled for, it “lowers the bar” regarding the level of discourse in this site and everywhere. In a way, it would be laughable if it weren’t really so sad.

    The Carter’s stories do have elements that are INDEED suspicious and unprovable—but one can analyze those elements without resorting to name-calling and airing unsubstantiated characterizations that ultimately have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If they’re “not to be trusted,” fine. I tend to agree with that, mostly. But let’s keep it civilized,and not let our feelings get into it as much as possible shall we???

    We’re supposed to be seekers after knowledge through “evidence,” not five-year-olds having a hissy-fit.

    4) On the other hand, I agree Bill N. went WAY over the line when he accused Loren of “fabricating” an email.
    The post may not have been “irrational,” but it was certainly prickly, and (at worst) vicious. I can understand Bill wanting to defend the name of the Carter sisters but accusing Loren of deliberately perpetrating something here without proof simply because he disagrees with Loren’s take on the “fiasco” is wrong. Shame on Bill for that.

    5) I loved most of the comments pro and con here. Everybody made good points.

    Although I must admit GrandmaMoses impressed me particularly. I like the cut of your jib, madam, for what it is worth!!!

    Like I said, I don’t necessarily think the Carters have been totally honest but I liked some of the opinions you gave and your spirited defense of them.

    I tend to agree with your opinion that Ole Hairy is “interdimensional”—what you have to understand is, that belief is usually classified HERE as belonging to the “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” school of thought.

    Some (not everybody here, of course—and I’m not talking about you, Mystery_Man, BTW) seem to think of it strictly in terms of it being a “terrestrial” animal and leave it at that. But the “evidence” so far (anecdotal, traditional and every other way) points to this being a being on our level or more. MY opinion, as always.

    Ultimately, time will tell what’s going on here and what this IS or is NOT. But sometimes (like I keep saying) we need to look outside the box and not label something “supernatural” or “unsicientific” just because it does not quite “fit” current knowledge.

    Ultimately, this is an unproven case unless more evidence comes forward. Another “what if.” Let’s leave it at that.

18. cryptidsrus responds: June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    Ultimately, ScrambledEggMan comes closeset to what I feel.

19. DWA responds: June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    scrambledeggman says:

    “In conclusion, I am just saying lets keep this story open and not be too hasty in closing the door on it as is what seems to be happening on this blog.

    Is this really too much to ask?”

    Going out on a limb to speak for the rest of us I can at least speak for me: I never do close a story. Not until the evidence is all in.

    I think what folks have had reservations about is that the evidence you list in your last post seems highly inconsistent with what anyone would expect from a habituation scenario. Two photos? And both blobsquatches? Everything else you list has been come upon in random encounters – most of such that I have read seeming to provide much more compelling associated evidence than we see here.

    They’re WRITING A BOOK. That’s saying: lookee here!

    OK.

    At what, precisely?

    Again. For a habituation scenario, I’m expecting to see a lot more than two blobs plus a pile of circumstantial stuff none of which can be conclusively said to be the sign of an animal not confirmed to exist yet.

    In other words, one can break a lot of tree limbs, build a lot of teepees, take a lot (two?) of real blurry pics of buddies in suits, make up a heck of a lot of words, and crap around his farm a whole lot if it will sell his book for him.

    Just sayin’.

20. Jeremy_Wells responds: June 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    scrambledeggman,
    This is exactly my issue with the whole situation. The so-called “proof” is nothing of the sort. It’s anecdotal and impossible to substantiate.
    You mention “two blurry blobsquatch photos”. I think your characterization of the photos says enough (not to mention that it kinda stumps that whole “they are invisible to cameras” argument.)
    You mention poop. Unless its been tested in a laboratory, and gut cultures were found that are indicative of an unknown primate (something that hasn’t happened to my knowledge), or there are clear photos and/or video of it coming out of a sasquatch, it is, again, not evidence. If we could substantiate that it came from one of these creatures, from either lab tests or photos, we could determine a lot about their diet from examination of stools. But without proof of where it came from, its just a pile of crap (figuratively and literally).
    Tree breaks and teepees have never impressed me much either. People can make teepees. People can use a come-along or wench to snap tree limbs. Other forces can snap limbs. It’s compelling circumstantial evidence in areas where there is other compelling evidence, but it is in no way proof. Now, if you have clear videos and photos of something in an area, accompanied by audio of cracking and snapping, and you then have evidence of these snaps (or other evidence of presence and then teepees), it is again compelling circumstantial evidence than can help us understand the habits of this animal. But again it is not proof of the animal. I’ll concede that it’s interesting, because we see known apes breaking foliage, banging the ground with clubs, etc. This makes such sign something I’d look for in an investigation. But it isn’t proof of the animals existence any more than a dropped twinkie wrapper is proof that I’ve been in an area though my love of the spongey snack cake is well known. It doesn’t disprove or prove anything, because it could have been dropped by another hiker, blown in on the breeze, or floated in on the stream. It’s circumstantial. Sometimes compelling in the presence of other corroborating evidence, but not proof.
    As far as the book of alleged bigfoot words and the CD of them being pronounced. I can’t believe I’m even having to say this, but; its no more proof of the reality of bigfoot than the existence of Klingon to Elvish dictionaries on sale at the Renaissance Faire are proof of the actual existence of Tolkien’s elves or Roddenberry’s Klingons. You want me to believe this is the language bigfoot uses? Show me a video, with a close-up of Fox’s face, while he pronounces the words.
    That is more akin to the kind of proof that is required.
    Chimp researchers didn’t go around telling us they knew chimps used spears until they had the videos of chimps stabbing bush babies in the hollows of trees with them. Orang researchers didn’t go telling us that these vegetarians were emulating fisherman at the waters edge until they had photo evidence of orangutans doing just that.
    It’s really just that simple. Without clear, quantifiable evidence, all you have are blurry photos, piles of crap, and a neat story.

21. cryptidsrus responds: June 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    DWA:
    You do make a very good point.

    I think the legitimacy of the claims is more than fair. In fact, the Carters should have known serious scrutiny would accompany their disclosure of their “encouters.” And refusing to answer legitimate questions just adds “fuel to the fire.”

    However, the discussion I think has veered unfortunately to a referendum on whether the Carters are “welfare-using trailer-park trash, therefore they are not to be trusted,” instead of “their claims are unsubstantiated and dubious, therefore they are not to be trusted,” you know what I mean??? 😉

    I understand Loren simply reported what he was emailed. That’s fine. But although I doubt the Carters, I also doubt the “motives” of Kd37354. I think her stake on this goes more on merely “setting the record straight,” at least that was the impression I GOT.

    I don’t know her either—just as I don’t know the Carters. But adding unsubstantiated comments about their lives to an email when it has nothing to do with the whether their claims are true or not casts doubt on one’s motives and truthfulness just as she cast doubt on the Carter’s credibility.
    In your own words—“Just sayin’.” 🙂

22. scrambeledeggman responds: June 25th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    DWA,

    Thank you for the blobsquatch comment. Yes, if they were trying to get a picture of a Sasquatch during the time Grandpa Carter was feeding Fox (the Sasquatch), and only got a blobsquatch, then yes this would be a bit suspicious.

    However, this is not what happened as you should know, having read the book. You have read the book right?

    Well, let me refresh your memory…As they were writing the book, Mary Green asked Janice to go through old photos to find any evidence of any Sasquatch on the property. Both the pictures of the blobsquatches are from old pictures from the 70s/80’s. One of the picture that shows the blobsquatch in full stride was taken from the Farm House. This Farm House was sold to someone else (possibly to the kd37354 family?) by the time the book was written. Let me repeat that, Janice did not own the Farm House at the time of the book writing. So, for your scenario to take place,(a staged blobsquatch picture) they would have had to 1) go get a suit, 2) have someone pose in the suit and then, 3) somehow get access to the neighbor’s utility room to take this “staged” shot. If these events happened, it should be easy to prove that a suit was bought or rented and that Janice got access to the neighbor house. These are the kind of follow up questions that need to be asked and answered, but since this is a “case closed”, these just won’t be addressed.

    Anyway, this brings up another one of my original points (going back years, to when the Carter Farm was first discussed on Cryptomundo) which is… People are commenting about this story and how it is “fake”, but have never taken time to read the book and really try to deconstruct the events and try to find holes in the logic. I challenge you to find holes in the logic in this book. Seriously, give me the page of the specific example you have found and how the story disconnects and we can discuss those. However if you have not read the book, it is hard to find these.

    So what about these blobsquatches? How were they able to get not one, but two blobsquatch picture from the 70’s/80’s? Also, the second blobsquatch is supposed to be of “Sheba” holding the pink blanket to her face. This pink blanket plays a big part in the story, so how did they stage that? The time frame of the Sheeba picture can be easily verified by finding the girl in the photo and seeing how old she is now. If she is still a little girl, then we know the shot was faked. If the little girl that appears in the Sheeba picture is all grown up now, then we know the photo really was taken back in the 70s/80s.

    It seems nobody has done that. It seems in general that nobody has really done much research on this hard to believe story, and that is really the whole point of this. I just want researchers to look more into this story and either debunk it piece by piece, or confirm it piece by piece. This, to my knowledge, has not happened. Yes, some parts of the story were found not to match up, and that has been enough it seems to brand the whole episode a “fake”. Is that really how it works? You find one piece that does not match up and you throw the whole story out? Well, for the Carter Farm story, this does seem to be the case.

    Until you read the book, I am afraid you are not really qualified to discuss this.

    BTW, that link I posted is without a doubt the Carter farm. After looking at the picture of the Carter Farm in the book, it is quite obvious that it is the same area. Looking at the farm in Google Earth and reviewing the photos in the book have actually made me more of a “believer” that this story has some truth to it. Now that I can see the farm in Google Earth, it is easy to find the treeline that the blobsquatch is by, which matches up with the area that Janice said the Bigfoot would often come out to the open and play. using that information, it is easy to see the location of the Farm House where the original shot was taken and identify that house as now belonging to the neighbor.

    Thank you.

23. norman-uk responds: June 25th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    What a fine mess you’ve got me into Stanley
    Jeremy Wells Please don’t wait until you have your extreme evidence. Pretty ordinary stuff will do for Sasquatch. Krantz wrote,” a hand would do” but for me much less would be fine ! I am pretty convinced by eyewitness accounts for a start and don’/t need to genufluct to science to become a believer (short for reasonably satisfied the evidence makes a good case)

    PhotoExpert. Bill N is IMO plain wrong accusing L.C. of fabricating kd37354’s blog and for that he ought to apologise. But the rest of his blog he seems to make some fair points in defence of his friend though you may not agree with those points. Myself, I would have done quite a bit more scensoring of the personal bits. Bill N strikes me as not a bad sort of friend to have! You describe kd’s blog as ”condescending” to Mrs C, did you mean a word like vitriolic ?

    You have really taken a slide rule and tweezers to his letter in a very partisan way. Would it not be more scientific to see both sides of the case?

    I am not a scientist but wonder how you know that the human eye cannot sometimes see more than can be recorded by a camera. What you are saying everything is known about this subject (an assumption) when nobody does (my assumption). When you talk about the laws of physics you are in fact talking of human understanding and interpretation of physics at this time, not physics itself.
    Understanding and learning about physics is a work in progress and we do not know the limits of human beings or intelligent life. Science tends to be reductionist and looses sight of (my assumption) that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In this sense a human being may be just salts and electicity but the potential is wonderful. Look what a simple one or a nought can achieve.
    We know little about other dimensions and what strange things may happen. Ive lost track of your blog somewhat as it was a bit fulsome. But did you exclude the paranormal etc from science ? I don’t think you can do this we just need to expand our view of science or find a new kind of science to explain or deal with events as they come along in those areas. Like one person seeing things that others cannot or talking to spirits or resolving the anomaly why Bigfoot can be seen but not proved clearly. There is evidence but for many not proof. Saying these things are hoaxes or hallucinations is the least reasonable assumption.

24. grandmamoses responds: June 25th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    Photoexpert, After reading through your latest and longest winded reply, I have come to the conclusion that you do not have the physics background that you claim. How did I figure that out? Because you blew it on your definition of “multi-dimensional”. In your dissertaton, you stated, “If BF were a spiritual being or multidimensional being, explain the garlic being given and taken away by Fox when Carter gave him the garlic. You can’t have it both ways. If that happened, for a period of time, even minutes, Fox was acting in accordance with the physical laws of our dimension and was able to take the garlic from Carter. Both were acting within the laws of physics in our dimension.”

    By your explanaton here, a multi-dimensional being cannot exist in man’s dimension and appear to follow the alleged laws of physics, and if he ever does come into man’s dimension, then he is not multi-dimensional. With that explanation, you provided strong circumstantial evidence that you do not have the physics background that you claim you have. Now let me help you and the others like you out, on what “multi-dimensional” means. A multi-dimensional/intedimensional being has the ability to move back and forth between dimensions. Therefore they can appear to be absolutely 100% flesh and blood and follow the laws of physics that man thinks cannot be broken, while in man’s dimension. That multi-dimensional being can then move to other dimensions and lets just call them higher dimensions. In those higher dimensions, things change that would cause a reasonable physicist to conclude that the so-called laws of physics can be broken in the higher dimensions. Therefore, the laws of physics were not laws to begin with, but rather just ordinances that need a little tweaking.

    Now that I got that over with, I think that I am going to take my daily laxative and lie down and have my little nap. And after waking up and rushing off to the little ladies room, I am going to be quite upset if I come back here and see that you kids have not learned your little lesson for the day.

25. mystery_man responds: June 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    The problem I see here is that a lot of the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial. That is not to say that the evidence won’t come to light at some point, and I surely wouldn’t want to close down a possible good avenue of research.

    At this point, I see things displaying what I call the “invisible dragon” line of thinking. This is based on an old thought experiment that goes something like this.

    “There is a fire breathing dragon living in my closet,” I say. A bold claim to be sure, so being the rational person you are, you ask perfectly sensible questions.

    “Can I see it? Can you photograph it,” you ask.

    “No. It’s an invisible dragon,” I reply. “It won’t show up on film.”

    “Well, then surely it has left some sort of physical evidence, perhaps footprints in the dust,” you say.

    “No. It’s immaterial,” I retort.

    This gets you to thinking. “You said it breathes fire. Perhaps we could get a thermal reading off of it?”

    “The dragon’s fire produces no heat and it is the exact same temperature as the air in this dimension. It can do this beacause (I insert some unproven theory of speculative physics that I poorly understand that was written in some book that was likely not properly corroborated by other scientists while at the same time ignoring any book that might refute my ideas)”

    And around and around we go, with each of your investigative questions countered by increasingly complex reasons for why the evidence cannot be produced. In this case, we have a creature that cannot be proven or disproven with any methods we now possess, and therefore a scientist would have no choice but to file it into the “I don’t know” file of reality as we know it until something further was found to ammend that. It has fallen from the realm of science and entered the realm of faith. I might be completely positive this invisible dragon exists, but the thing is, I have to show other people why this is so.

    This is not to say the dragon does not exist. We just have no reaon to accept it as real until we have more information. In this case, to doubt it is not the irrational thing to do, but rather to accept it as reality without more to go on is.

    I also had something else I wanted to touch on here. I understand what Fhqwhgads is saying about the creature perhaps appearing only in our mind’s eye. However, it is clear that whatever it is has exhibited some sort of physicality in this dimension. It has been described as accepting garlic, which implies that it is at least somewhat corpreal part of the time, which means that it is likely that it can be photographically recorded in some fashion, be it by conventional cameras or thermal imaging. It seems to me that creatures projecting themselves directly into our minds would not physically recieve garlic. Also, Carter has described plucking hairs from the creature’s hand, which also suggests there is more to it than merely a mental projection of some sort.

    The garlic is curious to me for other reasons as well. Carter explained that it needed the garlic to ward off mosquitos. If this thing is indeed extradimensional and incorpreal, then I wonder why it would be bothered by insects in our dimension. It seems unlikely to me that a creature that evolved or whatever it did in another dimension would be fed upon by an insect that evolved in this dimension. Compared to this creature, humans and mosquitos would be kissing cousins biologically speaking.

    So this is something I wonder about. How does an immaterial, phasing creature from a different dimension that may be mentally projecting itself have mosquito problems that neccesitate the need to use garlic? This is a curious thing for me.

26. scrambeledeggman responds: June 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    I have created a map of the places mentioned in the book as depicted on page 235 of “50 years with Bigfoot Tennessee Chronicles of Co-Existence” if anyone is interested. You can find the link here.

    Thank you.

27. wuffing responds: June 25th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    PhotoExpert wrote” Mental images, hallucinations, etc, are in the psychological and mental realm and therefore can not be photographed. And what you stated, is exactly what I was implying. You got it! Congratulations! We agree! So if the sighting at the Carter trailer could not be photographed, then what was it? Maybe what you just implied! Wuffing, you need to take the “wuff” out of your comments.”

    Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I guess we agree then that the witness may have perceived something that might not have been visible to another person standing nearby. I have first-hand reports of similar events myself.
    Your screen name is PhotoExpert, yet we have no photographs, so where exactly is your expertise being applied in this case? I think you mentioned earlier – I can’t check without losing my post – that all observations must obey the Laws of Physics, but are you sure that we now know all of them? When did we learn the last one?

28. archer1945 responds: June 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Some of the most interesting comments I’ve seen on here in a long time. I have read the book and found it most interesting while, at the same time, a bit troubling. I find it hard to believe that something such as this could go on for just a few years, let alone 50, and not be able to offer any better proof than what is given.

    I’ve been a photographer for more years than I like to think, not a professional, though I’ve done some work that has brought it money at times. I know what a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera is capable of doing, and it doesn’t even have to an extremely high cost professional lens either. That being said I would expect someone who has gone to the trouble to purchase a lens such as that to learn how to use and know how to take photos with it of an object the size of BF up to close to 1/4 mile away, easily out to 200 yards. In other words if you can see it you should be able to get a usable photo. I’m not saying you’ll be able to count the hairs on BF’s head but you should certainly be able to get a photo that shows a real object and not a blobsquatch.

    It was things like the blobsquatch photos, no footprints, no clumps of hair, no recordings of actual BF speech that made me wonder how much of the story was true and how much was fiction. As much as I’d like to believe the Carters story I’m afraid I have to take it with more than a few grains of salt.

    Btw, I am one of those that also believes BF is much more than the dumb primate most want it to be. But that is for another time and place.

29. mystery_man responds: June 26th, 2009 at 1:06 am

    Something that I’ve been noticing with a lot of these posts is the tendency to make statements like “We don’t know everything there is to know about physics,” or “How do YOU know it can’t be real?” or “We don’t know everything,” and so on. This is fine so far. It’s true, we don’t. The problem is that people are commiting a fallacy by making the jump from that to using it as some sort of evidence that anything and everything is possible.

    The tricky thing going on here is that the people who do this would have you believe that once you accept that we don’t know all there is to know about physics (true), then the corollary of that is that you must therefore accept whatever theory they are putting out (fallacy).

    It would be all fine and well if those making these statements gave their opinion and reasons and left it at that, admitting that no one knows for sure. In that case, I would think over what they said and consider it. However, what we have here are those who are giving precise, explicit rules and processes about how multidimensional creatures operate.

    How do you know this? Where is your data? Would that data be acceptable to be reviewed by the greater scientific community rather than just the few cherry picked scientists that support your notions? The thing is, there is no known case of any multidimensional being that we’ve been able to study, so how are these people so sure of how they operate other than from a personal hypothesis on how it must work or from reading a book on it while ignoring others that may refute it? How do we know that this is the reality any more than a thousand other possibilities?

    For instance, what if I said that these Bigfoot need power rings forged in Mordor to facilitate their interdimensional travel and if you took away the ring, they would lose the ability? Or that they are really aliens with teleportation technology? Or that this ability relies on the use of ‘Sureisnifty’ rays? Can you prove this is NOT the case? No you can’t, and I’m sure I could hide behind “we don’t know everything” and “invisible dragon” you, conveniently refuting your refutations if you tried. And that is why we need to tread carefully when ammending our paradigms. If science operated as some here seem to think it should, we’d still be in the Dark Ages.

    It should not surprise anyone that not everything that is possible is actually reality. There are those who unfortunately would expect you to believe that just because it could happen, then it stands to reason that it is happening. This could be, sure, but one purpose of science here is to parse out what really is happening from what could be happening and what to the best of our ability. This is the only way to come to a reasonable semblance of a conclusion as to what is real versus anything at all in our imagination that might be possible but in fact is perhaps not happening. Science is a series of checks and balances that allows us to come to the closest understanding that we are able to have with present methods and equipment. The way to discern that is through sifting through the evidence both for and against. Questioning is a hallmark of science.

    There are those here who I feel are using the fact that we indeed do not know everything about the universe as a blank check to go and define reality as they see fit. This is scientifically lazy, not constructive, and I think we should be wary of this. It is a hallmark of psuedoscience and in my opinion poses the danger of possibly leading us in the wrong directions.

    Mulitdimensional beings? Yes, maybe. I won’t discount the possibility. That doesn’t mean that this is what is indeed going on. For those who seem to know they exist and how they work, that’s fine. However you can’t expect everyone to just believe it because it might be real. If we did that, we would be forced to entertain seriously every unproveable notion anyone could think up. There has to be a way to try to come to some understanding without paralyzing ourselves with an infinite number of possibilities. With our current level of understanding We don’t know what exactly is going on. I certainly wouldn’t say we are in any position to say with the level of certainty being claimed here that we know all about how these beings would operate if they in fact exist.

    “We don’t know the universe works” is true! Yes, yes, and yes again! I just think it would be nice to see some of the proponents here acknowlege their own words and stop defining how everything is supposed to be with these creatures.

    I for one am quite happy to say I don’t know how these things operate. However, I am willing to learn, which is more than it seems can be said about those here that seem to think they have it all nailed down, with all of their cooked data to support their own somewhat preconcieved notions.

    My advice is to be wary of those who say we don’t know everything about the universe and then use that as an excuse for you to buy into their own unfounded theories without being allowed to question them.

30. proriter responds: June 26th, 2009 at 6:03 am

    “. . .that language is a mix of Native American dialectics, with some Spanish and Pidgin English thrown in.” Some of you people would do well to prove that BF exists first, before you speculate absurdly about the sort of language it speaks.

31. DWA responds: June 26th, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Scrambledeggman:

    “Until you read the book, I am afraid you are not really qualified to discuss this.”

    What I’m afraid you’re not getting is that I am more qualified to discuss this than you are, or the Carters for that matter. Because I understand what’s going on here. And you don’t seem to.

    Don’t want to read the book; don’t have to; don’t need to.

    You TOLD ME WHAT’S IN IT, and as archer1945 says:

    “I find it hard to believe that something such as this could go on for just a few years, let alone 50, and not be able to offer any better proof than what is given.“

    Which is what I have been saying, for post after post.

    A thorough reading of this book, and detailed interviews with every participant, plus lie detector tests, will get me no closer to confirming the sasquatch for myself than sitting right here typing this is doing. Because this is not about the sterling character of the witnesses, or about what they say happened. I will lay you odds that I have read many reports by people of equal or better character. Know what? I ain’t there on the sasquatch yet, and I’ve seen tracks. You?

    This is no better than my track find, or Jeremy_wells’s, or any other single sas report. You can put it in book form if you choose. Know what that makes it? A loooooooong sighting report. With a cover.. File it with the others under “interesting, but not confirmation or anywhere near.”

    What we need here – and I keep on and keep on and keep on saying it – is FOLLOWUP by qualified scientists on what appears to be a real phenomenon that they are ignoring.

    This? You told me what it is. Their word. One more story.

    I’ve gone on the record as saying that if the most trusted person in the world reported a sighting to me, my hmmmm might escalate to HMMMMMM, but I wouldn’t be there, because any ONE – that’s any ONE – story could be a false positive.

    Including this one.

    I’ll pick up the book by the people who confirm the critter and give me accounts and pictures that tell me everything about it – as verified by their scientific peers. Or I’ll stick with the books I already have – the ones that compile MANY stories, that speak eloquently to the frequency and coherence of the overall evidence.

    But scientists have to put that EUREKA! book out, and I need to have seen enough before I crack the cover to know it’s the real McCoy. As I also pointed out way up there, I will know, before I even touch that book, that it’s the truth. Because science works that way.

    Sorry; that’s my standard of proof, and the world’s. And you and the Carters need to get that.

    Cool story. Maybe. But just one story.

    Making very clear here: I cannot doubt the Carters’ word. I was not there; and they were.

    But as I pointed out, very carefully, above: their experience ain’t my proof.

    As you yourself said, scrambledeggman, this is an open case.

    So WHY in the world would I want to read the book NOW?

    As an open case: it’s a sighting report. And I’ve read TONS.

    You?

32. Jeremy_Wells responds: June 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am

    RE: the various “dumb primate/it must be something higher statements”

    I think it’s unfair to characterize individuals who put forward what I will call the flesh and blood hypothesis as believing that BF represent a “dumb” primate.

    In fact, I think we all believe he’s a pretty savvy primate, and that is why he is able to elude us.

    Nor would I characterize any of the other higher primates as “dumb”. To do so is human arrogance.

    Gorillas have learned sign language. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh’s bonobo communicate via symbol boards and even began writing to represent those symbols when they board was not present to point at. Orangs regularly pick locks, steal boats, and emulate other behaviors they observe.

    This is on top of chimp tool manufacture, complex pack hunting, etc.

    No, I don’t think any of us would characterize primates as “dumb”. Not by a long shot.

33. DWA responds: June 26th, 2009 at 11:05 am

    jeremy_wells: ditto on the “dumb primate” statements.

    Haivng read a lot of evidence I’m reading: an ape, with behaviors and intelligence (that would be high intelligence) comparable to the apes we know about.

    I think it’s ‘eluding’ us more because we can’t collate the evidence into anything cohesive, because every witness is an island who can’t openly share the experience with the culture at large. But that doesn’t say anything, really, about smarts. People capture really smart crooks all the time, don’t they?

    I think that the “something higher” people are selling apes short. As someone once put it: apes didn’t fail to become us. They succeeded in becoming apes.

34. DWA responds: June 26th, 2009 at 11:13 am

    scrambledeggman: I needed to add this re: your comment on the blobsuit scenario:

    “So, for your scenario to take place,(a staged blobsquatch picture) they would have had to 1) go get a suit, 2) have someone pose in the suit and then, 3) somehow get access to the neighbor’s utility room to take this “staged” shot. If these events happened, it should be easy to prove that a suit was bought or rented and that Janice got access to the neighbor house. These are the kind of follow up questions that need to be asked and answered, but since this is a “case closed”, these just won’t be addressed.”

    You know how this works, right? You go out and do all that followup.

    THEN YOU PUT OUT THE BOOK.

    And THERE is what sticks in my craw about lengthy sighting reports like this. Finish the homework if you want me to spend my money. I can read shorter, and more compelling, sighting reports than someone who has read this book already tells me this book is. And I can do it for free.

    (And if it doesn’t offer what amounts to scientific proof, it’s still only one story. Can’t-find-a-suit does not proof make. Just ask Roger Patterson.)

35. MrInspector responds: June 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Wow! There are certainly a great number of comments on this one! Great meaning volume not content.
    I think, remember my own opinion, the fact that most of the neighbors have no clue that this book exists or that these stores are out there, says a great deal about the validity of the claims. The bottom line, this seems to be devolving into mere name calling.
    I have seen this area and it seems, at the very least, unlikely that this area would allow for a large number of such large creatures to exist in secrecy. Yes, the Smokey’s are close by, but there is a lot of open ground between yonder and yon. A lot of populated open ground. Areas like SE Oklahoma, and the Pacific North West are extremely sparsely populated and some areas have never even held a human footprint. It’s just a little more believable that a large hairy biped could live in these areas unobserved or rarely observed.
    Furthermore, to think that a wild animal decided to domesticate itself, move in with people, adopt their language, and then leave absolutely no proof in it’s wake, flies in the face of logic! It’s patently ludicrous!
    Bill N. or E., or whatever he chooses to call himself at this particular moment, claims there is proof yet offers none. He then goes on to claim Loren made up the neighbor and then wrote the email himself out of malice. If spoken,what he says would be slander, in print it’s libel. I beg, show me any other instance of Loren doing this. Show me any instance where Loren has intentionally deceived his readers by making false claims and allegations. In fact, show me one instance of Loren calling this woman a liar. You can’t, because it hasn’t happened.
    I may not always agree with Loren’s conclusions, I may not always agree with the subject matter. I don’t necessarily believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, or psychic mediums, but I’ve never seen any indication that Loren Colman has set out to deceive a single soul about any of the things he writes about.
    Loren and I have exchanged a few emails over the last couple of years, we’re not drinking buddies nor would I even say we’re friends, we’ve never met! However, every communication I’ve had with the man was genuine, honest and very polite. I have no vested interest in this story or defending Loren. I’m merely stating in my Not So Humble Opinion(humility is for those who don’t carry a big enough side arm) this Bill N. or E. is “stuffed absolutely full of blueberry muffins.” (kudos if you get the movie quote)Janice on the other hand seems to me to be a bit off. And believe me, I’ve spent enough time with people who have problems to know when someone isn’t quite right. I’m not saying she’s a loon, I’m not calling her a liar. But it just doesn’t make sense!
    This isn’t a venue for personal attacks!
    RMH

36. PhotoExpert responds: June 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    I appreciate the responses from all, even if we disagree. It would be a boring world if everyone agreed with each other. For me, it is both healthy and fun to discuss these issues. Now to answer some posts.

    Jeremy_Wells–Another excellent and to the point post. Keep up the great posting!

    norman-uk–I think you have a great understanding and your analysis of the situation is spot-on!

    Grandmamoses–It was my opinion that you were just a confused older person who likes fantasy stories about multidimensional beings. Now, I think you are a comedian. I got a good laugh from your post. I thank you for that! As for your opinion of my knowledge in physics is concerned, I would say the institution and the those that signed the diploma that is hanging on my wall in front of me, would vehemently disagree with you, as to my expertise. LOL But thanks for your learned opinion which again goes against the facts, once again.

    You seem to have a knack for making up fantasy stories, nurturing them as your opinion and trying to pawn them off as facts. I was trying to be kind to you in my post. But now I will just be upfront since you don’t seem to grasp educated opinions or facts and would rather live in your created world of fantasy. Do some reading. Current physicists use the words multidimensional, intradimensional, interdimensional, etc., and they can be substituted, depending on the party we are engaging in conversation. You yourself used the word multidimensional. So that is the pot calling the kettle black. I’ll use your example to clarify my point in plain English, so even a layman can understand. Multi, meaning many, or more than one–a multidimensional being can exist in more than one dimension or transverse from one dimension to another. Your question should now be, can a multidimensional being exist in more than one dimension at the same time? Who knows and who cares, since we have not proven multidimensional theory. It is just that, a theory. But you would have us believe it is fact! It is not! And yes, once again, in the Fox taking the garlic example, Fox and the garlic would be subject to the constraints of the laws of physics in this dimension, whether you like it or not or whether you disagree with that fact or not. I will buy into facts. I will buy into the possibilities of theories. However, I am not going to buy into your la-la fantasyland where everything is possible, even the breaking of the laws of physics, to make your fictional story believable.

    You do have some basic conceptual ideas of some theories. However, your understanding of those theories is limited to some extent. You get the idea but don’t fully understand how it works and are either limited by your lack of knowledge on the subject or your insistence that it makes your story more believable. And when you can’t explain it or the law refutes your fantasy theory, you always opt for mixing the theories or using the parts of them that fit. You must accept the entire theory for it to hold true. Let’s use an example shall we. If an object in motion tends to stay in motion, until acted upon by an outside force, that would be a law of physics. You would say, that an object in motion might have free will and decide to morph into another dimension and continue that motion. You mix a law of physics with multidimensional theory to suit your fantasy stories. You can’t do that grandma! Well, you can do it, but you would be wrong. So you are wrong! Plain and simple! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and is better left to the experts like myself. But good try!

    Grandma, I could debate and refute your posts ad infinitum, but I really don’t have the time or energy to waste. And I am not a fan of fiction. So I do not want to discuss the Klingon language or debate a morphing BF. If it exists, it is a flesh and blood creature that acts under the laws of physics in our world. End of story!

    mystery_man–Thank goodness you posted! I was going a little bonkers in trying to comprehend the insanity of grandma’s post. You saved me a lot of typing! Thank you for that and for bringing back to the real world. I might have lost my sanity if it were not for you! Great post as always!

    wuffing–I enjoyed reading your post. I took the time to do it because you write concisely and are intelligent! We agree on most things. And when we might have an area of disagreement, I embrace that too because of the intelligent way you express yourself. I don’t know how long you have been at this board, but whenever I see a new screen name, I watch for their postings. If I like the way the person posts, even if we might be adversarial, I will read their posts. We agree on most things, so you do not fall into that category. You fall into the category of DWA and mystery_man, who are two of my favorite posters at this forum. If you are new here, my screen name is one of things I have accomplished in life. I am even used as an expert witness in a court of law. I have the credentials to evaluate photographs and have an extensive background in optical physics. I am a photo expert. LOL As for this case, I have no dog in the fight. If I did, I could not comment on the Carter photographs or blobsquatches. I would have to remain impartial and objective. Fortunately for me, I can remain subjective as far as this case is concerned.

    As for your physics question, no, we do not know all the laws of physics. There are some new laws which we should learn about shortly, but as of today, these would be laws concerning new discoveries of things that were theorized by man. What I can say with certainty is that given the parameters of the Carter case, even a morphing BF would be constrained to the physical laws of our world. End of story! Now, in another dimension, a morphing BF would not be constrained by our physical laws. Ergo, even when a morphing BF enters our realm, he or she, would be subject to the laws of physics. No way around that! And to think, a morphing BF just wanted garlic and is afraid of cameras. LOL Sorry, if BF does exist, it is a flesh and blood cryptid. I look forward to reading more of your posts here at the forum.

    archer1945–Excellent post!

    proriter–Spot on! I said that exact same thing, earlier in this thread!

    DWA–Great posting as always! I have nothing to add!

37. grandmamoses responds: June 27th, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Photo expert, I can see that I really got under your skin, or perhaps I got under the skin of your boss. wink, wink! You ought to run for political office because you are an expert at evasion, confusion and disinformation. Associating interdimensional theories with Bigfoot was accepted by science apparently well before your time. But your mission statement today, apparently includes attacking those that bring light to that history, that most never knew. That Klingon association in order to discredit my science tip for the day, was a nice touch as well. And say hello to Karl Rose and Irishtheruler, next time you see them around the water cooler, which I imagine will be your very next coffee break. There cover has been blown as well. Oops, I guess I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry.
    Now I think that I will just watch my old Lawrence Welk and Bob Hope recordings. My blood pressure is starting to rise and I don’t want to say something else here that I will later regret, and may have to go to confession in order set things right again. But I think I said enough. Except for one more thing. Long live the interdimensional Bigfoot! Hip, hip hooray!

38. Ole Bub responds: June 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Give it a break Cryptos…

    I know Janice, and many other “habituators ” who make similar claims. I am proud to call her a friend and associate. Do I believe her every statement, not necessarily, however I do believe she believes her memory of events on the Carter farm. Her claims are commonplace and repeatable among those who habituate.

    I know Janice is active in large breed dog rescue, we have worked together in rescue, she has saved many dogs from unnecessary euthanasia. Some folks on this blog have provided forever homes for dogs we have rescued. I talked to her last evening, she is deeply offended and hurt by the mean spirited remarks regarding her children and some of the vicious comments of this blog.

    We have enabled, facilitated and networked with habituators for some time. Evidence of habituation, as a rule, is not shared or destributed, resulting from the many negative experiences of zealous thugs, skeptics, scoftics, who trespass, assault, threaten, intimidate and ridicule those who attempt to share information, images, videos, or locations, with “sasquatchery”.

    Myself and other like minded facilitators have provided over a hundred thousand dollars in digital cameras, HD video camcorders, audio recording equipment, logistical and financial support, including thousands of hours of effort for those “genuine” habituation cases we support. We are non profit self funded and therefore objectively independent. We do not monetize sasquatchery.

    There are over thirty case studies in several states, spanning North America, whose research is fastidiously documented and recorded utilizing scientific methodology for eventual full disclosure and publication to the scientific community. We work with several notable scientists, anthropologists and researchers from major North American Universities, and the Russian Institute of Hominology.

    We have no hidden agendas and actively support passive respectful no kill observation and research, while quietly documenting those efforts. The evidence is clear, compelling and convincing, Loren and Craig know this as fact, whether they will admit it or not is another issue.

    We are working with various State and Federal governmental agencies including Fish and Wildlife, services, we cooperate and have the support and endorsement of several Native American First Nations to recognize and protect the “North American Aboriginal Ancient Peoples”, from sport hunting and harassment. “Tribal Bigfoot” and “The Hoopa Project”, by David and Harvey, offer some insight into tribal investigational cooperation.

    Wish us well or wish us ill will…no matter…it is what it is…

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

39. scrambeledeggman responds: June 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Yes, this story does seem to get people fired up.

    I can totally agree on not agreeing.

    I don’t have a problem with this story being a hoax, or being real (0r being the middle ground). For the folks that have read the book (er, I mean sighting report 😉 generally say the same thing, that this is an interesting story, but very hard to believe. Yes, I agree 100% with what Archer1945 said…”I have read the book and found it most interesting while, at the same time, a bit troubling.”

    Yes, exactly! Interesting, but troubling.

    I am not here to convince anyone this story is true or not.

    I am here to bring up the point that, in my opinion, Janice and Mary have not been given “due credit”, but dismissed without anyone critically looking at the story.

    1) if this story is true, let’s give them credit for bringing this story to the BF community and give them credit for documenting some unique and hard to believe BF behaviors that no other researcher has put forth.

    2) if this story is a hoax, well, let’s give them credit for that! If this is a hoax, lets acknowledge what a good hoax this is and let’s acknowledge how much work went into this hoax. If this is a hoax, then it is one of the most elaborate and well put together hoaxs in the history of Bigfoot lore. If this story is 100% made up, lets take a minute to say that Janice is a brilliant story teller with a vivid imagination and obviously highly intelligent to be able to weave a story without any holes in the logic. Someone call Hollywood, because we have an amazing storyteller here!

    See, you can’t have it both ways.

    In my opinion, neither one of these scenarios is happening. People are calling it a hoax, but not really taking the time to appreciate what an elaborate hoax this is. For the people that seem to be doing real research on this sighting report, well, they are not sharing this information to “prove” these events have/are happening.

    Either way, no new information about this “sighting report” is surfacing, and it has devolved into a name calling fest.

    My point is that more research into this interesting but troubling story needs to happen so we can all agree (well, most of us) that this story is either a hoax, or it really happened (or something happened on this property and the rest was made up)

    My only other comment would be to Mr DNA about me “putting down the book” and doing real research… I did do some real research.. I found the actual Carter Farm! I am not sure if you realize this, but, this is the first time the location of the Carter Farm has been publicly identified. I also digitized the locations mentioned in the book. This is also the first time this has been done in a public forum. If you doubt this is true, just review what motivated kd37354 to write to Loren in the first place… She was correcting the reported location of the Carter Farm that Loren’s brother reported! See, the location of the Carter Farm was not really known to the general BF community, so that is why Loren’s brother could not find it. Now that we know the location of the farm, we can start to take apart some of the claims in the book, er I mean sighting report. (i.e. searching the public records to see if the attack on the teenage girl was actually reported in the local paper like Janice claims in the book. Now that we know where the farm is, we can find the local paper and search the archives)

    Anyway, I can agree to not agree.

    From all the comments posted here, it is very obvious to me that there are folks that have an open mind on this story and are willing to keep an open mind about the need for more research into these troubling claims. It is also very clear to me that there are other folks that refuse to look at this story because it is too far-fetched and so therefore it must NOT be true.

    This just solidifies my own personal theory that there is a real bias about the Carter Farm story in the larger Bigfoot community.

    Some will agree with this statement and some won’t. The ones that agree I am sure will silently nod their head in agreement. The ones that don’t think there is a bias about this story I am sure will continue to resort to name calling and other evasive tactics.

    Thanks everyone for your comments!

40. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: June 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Okay, as far as the personal lives of the people involved in this Bigfoot habituation incident, whether it really happened or not, I hold the same stance on that issue as I do with the lives of celebrities – who really cares? Of what relevance is the personal life of J. Carter to this? What we should be focusing on is the lack of solid evidence, not how a person happens to live.

    Now, for another issue entirely;

    Grandmamoses – When exactly was “associating interdimensional theories with Bigfoot” accepted by science? As far as I know, it is generally the habit of science to first discern whether something truly exists – a feat yet to be accomplished in this case – before quibbling over the details. That I know of, this association you’re talking about hasn’t been accepted by science, but rather by a few people on what may be termed the fringe of the fringe of science.

41. grandmamoses responds: June 27th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    CryptoInformant 2.0, lets first establish your age, and please submit irrefuteable and verifiable proof so that we can be reasonably confident that you are telling the truth about just that one item. Then we will talk about what you missed out on as a result of not even being a thought, much less being born, when the Bigfoot was well talked about nationwide. I find it interesting that virtually all the four horseman for starters, were not living in the States, or were not living in a major US city, when the interdimensional Bigfoot was known about. Which is why the four horseman are 24/7 F&Bers, or at least they have not confessed to being anything else that I am aware of. Although, EB did claim that John Greene seemed to be comfortable with the paranormal Bigfoot a few years back, before he died. Morgan, Lapseritis, Powell, Franzoni, Moneymaker, Dave Johnson, Leiterman, Fred Beck, and hundreds of others have all at least privately shown strong leanings toward the interdimensional Bigfoot. So the interdimensional Bigfoot is nothing new. You also must ask yourself, what caused the word “interdimensional” to come into existence in the first place. It wasn’t because nothing is interdimensional, I can guarantee you that. Simple logic dictates that “interdimensional” came into existence because something was. Now what do you think it was if it wasn’t Bigfoot? tick,tick,tick,tick bzzzzzz Times up!

    Bigfoot remains the most likely culprit, in my opinion, for causing that word to come into existence. I can also see here that readers are not watching enough of the sci-fi channel, when not searching for Bob Hope reruns of course. sigh! Virtually everything Bigfoot is covered on the sci-fi channel today, or in full fledged movies like Predator (invisibility, partial invisibility, weightlessness) or Star Trek (dematerializing, telepathic communication in the Borg). Except without directly associating that stolen material with Bigfoot. I once passed a photo of Bigfoot orbs to writers for the Sasquatch Dumpling Gang, and next thing I know there is a dud movie out on a Super Orb. Now that is all plagarism! And contrary to the claims of a ghost hunter here, Orbs are quite real and can easily be seen with the naked eye by holding your head above a camera with flash, when out in the woods at night, an simply look out and see all the orbs that light up with your camera flash. Piece of cake. The move to convince the public that orbs are mere dust particles, is phooey!

    Bigfoot research in the US, is constantly being subverted by an organized nationwide group that utilizes pawns like MK Davis, and Photo Expert. With the recent USFW sponsoring of a Bigfoot information talk (not mentioned on Cryptomundo), that clandestine group has redoubled its efforts to destroy the credibility of real Bigfoot researchers like Janice Carter.

42. Jeremy_Wells responds: June 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Grandmamoses,

    Those “orbs” you see after holding your head over a camera flash, those are a result of the rods and cones in your retina being momentarily overwhelmed by the flash of light.
    The same effect is registered when, for instance, you spend time under a green light and upon leaving the room everything looks red. There is, in fact, a famous painting of an American flag done in opposite colors (Green, Orange and Black instead of Red, Blue and White) and if you stare at this long enough, then look at a plain white canvas, you will see an after image of the red, white and blue flag.

    I’m old enough to remember flash bulbs on cameras, and the crazy balls of light we’d see after having our pictures taken as kids with those. But now we’re REALLY veering off the topic of cryptozoology.

43. allandeabnei responds: June 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    I Lived with Janice Carter for 15 months, in Indiana and Tennessee, and I am very tired of distractors, while I lived with her in Tennessee, we was allowed to go by the farm, many times,and her boy friend at the time, also claimed her story is true, well now her is my side of the story,I stopped to talk to one neighbor, and got a chance to know him, and build a trust with him and his wife,and finally they told me Janice and her grand father was indeed telling the truth, you have to build a trust with people around that area, before the truth comes out, most neighbors will say any thing just to get rid of the person asking around, so I ask you, does this seem like common sense, yes it does, and the book of Janice Carter, says mountains are near by, not on the farm, well now lets look at that, I went past mountains less then 5 to 10 miles from there, I would say that is close, and yes they are the foot hills to the smoky mountains, another distractor, we all know, wrote he went to the police dept, and they had no reports, well what he did not tell you was, he did not talk to the police chief or even the mayor of Madisonville during the time that the Carters resided their, now while would he leave that detail out, I am here to make the reader to stop and think about the truth, and consider the source, its just a matter of common sense folks, tom biscardi Jr. and his crew was at the carter farm in July of 2008, by the besetts of Janice carter, I have the pictures to prove that, in order to put a stop to to the nay sayers,

    now let get to the truth of fox and family, I have left food for fox and family, found their foot tracks, and have seen bo and fox once, and again watched Janice carter talk to them in the dark at night, I have watched bo scream from a hill top, twice, my wife has seen fox looking in on her from a window several times, so I will tell you it is a true story,
    now lets get to me taking pictures of them, hell no I did not, why should I, I am not out to prove a darn thing, if the skeptics want to run their mouth, because they think this story is a hoax, then they need to take a look at they own hearts and sins first, Janice does have pictures of them, and have seen them, I have seen her note books on the language she took through the years, I have seen her sell off certain artifacts from the carter farm, to make a living, is she poor, heck yes she is,
    why, because she is unhealthy to work, and I wont go in to that, again stop and think, all we need is gods wealth, not material possessions, has she ever worked a job, yes indeed she has, and has helped pay the taxes for the welfare she was on for years, again remember, you have to live with some one in order to know that person, of all the things I have seen in 15 months living with a legend, I have to say she is real, complicated yes, you would be to if you had all the distractors out there and her trying to defending herself, and then throwing up your hands at a all most impossible job, so I will step up and take the heat, my name is steve abney, thank you for your time,

44. allandeabnei responds: June 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    just a after note if you will, people say their are no pictures in the book,well let me say this, they did not look very hard, if you see the picture of the young blonde girl standing by the old car, then look over her to her right, and you will see sheeba and fox looking from the shadows, and now we say they are blob squatches, well take and invert them and you will see they turn white not uf blue , if some thing is covered in hair and the aultra violet light hits it, it does not turn blue but white or grey, this a fact, now use common sense and see if that huge hair thing could be a domestic animal in the shape of a human, wow, its so easy folks, stop and think,

45. tschools responds: June 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    I am not sure the intentions of the neighbor, but its interesting she hasn’t responded for quite some time now. Heck I live near Loren but I’ve never seen him, does he exsist? Just a little Maine humor. Lighten up people!

46. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: June 29th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Grandma, I do not see how my age is relevant to this discussion at all, and, were I to do what you asked – that is, provide irrefutable proof of my age – I would have to post my birth certificate here on the internet, which is just asking for identity theft.

    Now, on the issue of the word interdimensional, I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the channel on which all the bigfoot stuff is apparently covered – sci-fi. That is, science-fiction. Quantum physics is the only field in which I have seen use of that word in a serious manner by qualified, reliable scientists. Aside from that, the best use for that word is in my favorite section of the entertainment industry – science-fiction novels.

    Also… “an organized nationwide group” subverting Bigfoot researchers? I’m sure you’re getting tired of this line by now, but I gotta say it…
    Where. Is. The. Proof?

47. littlefoot18 responds: July 7th, 2009 at 10:38 am

    I remeber hearing this story, I had a hard time believing it, and now i still have doubts, I believe the sasquatch are intellegent, native american legend claims that they often interacted with them, inculding vocal comunication, i find this believable becuase a bipedal hominid such as sasquatch would have similar if not the same vocal chords ans muscles as humans. However, I dont beilieve that the sasquatch would speak english because they are so elusive that interaction with humans is nearly absent these days. With that said, i find the idea of interactions with humans in a location of almost complete farmland and little forested areas to hide in rather farfetched.

48. saleen469 responds: July 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Anybody believing such an absolute fairy tale as Janice Carter has spun isn’t too far from her.

49. Igor Bourtsev responds: October 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am

    So broad discussion on the Carter case!
    I did not read all comments before and have no time to read them now.
    But I understand that the overwhelming majority does not believe the Carter’s story. I think the reason is that WE HAVE DEAL/CA– USE with very much unusual REALITY, with UNUSUAL kind of reality which is almost beyond of our sense, of our mind, of our imagination.
    It is principally NEW kind of reality – Bayanov called it “HOMINKIND” in the contrary to “HUMANKIND”.
    And when the HUMANKIND recognises the HOMINKIND, homins will turn their faces to us, and we’ll have opportunities to closely contact to them.
    But now – only a miserious part of the humankind understand such neghboured homins and contact to them. And Janice Carter is one of such an understanding humans. And fortunately – she is not alone!

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|