Comments on: Cartergate: Follow The Money

By: BigJake

BigJake — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:50:02 +0000

50 years of BF in one relatively small location and no bodies? No bones? That bothers me even more than the lack of photos.

By: skunkape_hunter

skunkape_hunter — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:42:53 +0000

First of all thanx to Kittenz for that reply (#49) to Igor. I had become fairly frustrated by that point. Him saying I was spreading gossip (calling me a liar) did not help. So here is the ‘gossip’ on the critter cam, right off of Mary Greens own site. I have copied a clip to post here and will give the URL for all to read. I believe that the statement is a veiled claim of conspiracy by the locals.

…The camera was reportedly tripped on every picture, but when Janice took them in to be developed and returned later to pick them up, she was told that none of them were any good. She had to make additional trips at our insistence in order to obtain her negatives and pictures. In the end, the photographs all appeared to be over exposed and the negatives ruined. Lesson learned. Do not take your film to be developed by locals….

The italics are added by me. The URL to this part of the report is here.

In case the URL does not make it, the page is on Mary Greens site. It is page 4 of the updates on the Carter farm.

So I am not sure what gossip he is talking about. Maybe the fact that I think Janice faked it ?

Either way he asks what I want of them. I would like to see REAL evidence to support their very extraordinary claims.

The part where he tells me not to think or speak of them is a presumptive statement on his part.

By: skunkape_hunter

skunkape_hunter — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:59:44 +0000

Can anyone tell me what it means to be a ‘market-woman’ in Russia ?

I had to get away from this for a couple days, I got to ramped up.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:59:42 +0000

The Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall comparison to these ladies is preposterous. These two scientists went out, observed and recorded with legitimate scientific methods, collected EVIDENCE that is reliable, and took PHOTOS (and I will say gorillas aren’t too keen on cameras either). This is a fact and not in dispute. Why did they do this? Because they want the world to truly understand these wonderful creatures. If that is the case with the ladies of the Carter Farm, and it seems they want to be taken seriously, then they should have gone through lengths to study, document, and collect evidence properly. We have only their word and some rather shaky evidence. As for the people who think it is too bizarre to be made up, there are novels and movies where whole worlds, languages, etc are created from imagination. Imagination is a powerful thing, but it does not prove anything about this story whatsoever. Scientists like Jane Goodall did not whip up their stories from imagination, they had to do what every scientist works hard to do and PROVE IT. Therefore, scientists don’t go out publishing things until they have the stuff to back it up. I dread the day when we start just accepting everybody’s fantastic stories at face value. I have not seen one piece of compelling evidence to support anything that was claimed at the Carter Farm. And if others involved in this case are truly scientists with all these credentials, then they know what they need to do for people to believe this story and they would not make claims without something to support those claims.

By: Tabman

Tabman — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:39:27 +0000

The story is not over. We shall see in time.

What is over the top today may very well be accepted tomorrow.

Isn’t it amazing that this discussion continues while the story has moved to the second page of the site? How many times does that happen here?

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:42:06 +0000

Saying that the principal women in this case have “names [that] will be remembered, like Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall” is a little over the top.

Please, let’s be realistic.

There is no evidence in the form of photographs of these alleged Carter Bigfoot. Fossey and Goodall, besides their many observations, had photos to back up what they were saying.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:34:56 +0000

“Jerry Coleman’s excellent “investigation” notwithstanding, the two women have much to contribute to the study of Bigfoot. Given time, their names will be remembered, like Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall.”

I beg to differ. Both Jane Goodall & Dian Fossey spent years among their animals, making detailed, VERIFIABLE observations, working under the guidance of Louis B. Leakey. They EARNED their acclaim through years of research and documentation.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:24:02 +0000

Mea culpa. EMINENT scientists not imminent scientists.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:43:58 +0000

“Reply by Igor Bourtsev to skunkape_hunter (19):

1. I have been involved in this research for 41 year and can distinguish the fake from real things.”

Excuse me, Mr. Bourtsev, no disrespect intended, but if you are a scientist you must surely require more conclusive proof in your investigations than “I saw it and I say it’s real so take my word for it”?
Why should the people who post here, most of whom do believe in the existence of Bigfoot, take as proof YOUR WORD that all this Carter Farm “evidence” is the real McCoy and not fabrication? As a scientist, do you accept everything at face value, knowing that any and all of these things can be faked and HAVE been faked at other times and places? Do you not use a scientific method and a process of elimination in your investigations? If a crime was committed, and a white shirt was found at the crime scene, would you vote to convict someone of that crime because the shirt was the brand they wore? Or would you insist on solid evidence, including DNA typing and other corroborating evidence, before condemning that person?

You can’t expect others to accept this whole story at face value, without any concrete proof, just because you say it is all true. Observation of circumstantial evidence, even by a scientist, has little value other than anecdotal curiosity unless it can be scientifically tested. Even imminent scientists can have the wool pulled over their eyes. As a “hominologist” I am sure you must have heard about Piltdown Man.

By: tpeter

tpeter — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 12:51:50 +0000

One or two people in this discussion have commented how hard it may be to get a linguist, especially an eminent one, to examine a sample of unknown language brought in by a complete stranger, especially if that unknown language is alleged to be Bigfoot or extraterrestrial and if the evidence is just the complete stranger’s own handwritten or hand-typed notes, with no specimens of written language, no tapes of the sound of the language being spoken, etc. What many of us are not aware of, but most professional linguists are QUITE aware of, is that there are estimated to be something like 5,000-6,000 languages spoken on this planet, and no one linguist can possibly know or even just identify or recognize more than a very tiny fraction of those. The first thought thus of most linguists on being shown an alleged language sample brought in by a complete stranger “just off the street” is that it MIGHT be any one of those 5,000-6,000 already known languages, for starters–but WHICH one? Most linguists thus just wouldn’t have the time or inclination to spend even a minute on such a hopeless, impossible “needle in a haystack” task!