I sometimes get the feeling that scandals are breaking out all around us. It seems to be happening in Washington D.C. this week, and I wonder when it’s going to occur in Tennessee.

Myth or Real? Illustrating an alleged encounter: Janice meeting Fox in house’s basement, April 2002. Click to make Bigfoot even bigger.

My brother Jerry D. Coleman’s "A Carter Farm Investigation – Part Four" has now been posted.

The observations are good, and some of the photographs (see below) stimulated, shared, and debated in this melodrama clearly show a difference of opinion on even the landscape of the Carter "farm."

I think the most interesting question that Jerry’s asks, however, is this simple one:

Why would a researcher invest 3000 dollars to feed unseen creatures?

I want to push the envelope beyond where my brother has in his interesting column, and ask some questions I have from afar. I want to follow the money and more. My questions are:

So, actually, the $3000 wasn’t an investment was it? What did that researcher get back? Was it a payment? Was it, heaven help us all, coverup money? What was it really?

What kind of relationship do the principals in this story have? What’s the links here? What kind of sexual relationships have occurred between "eyewitnesses" and "researchers"? Have any of the principals involved been in trouble with the law? What kind of "front" could the Bigfoot stories there be hiding? Is there any known use of the "farm" for any kind of rural, er, crop?

This may seem odd, but in a couple of Carter Farm books that are overflowing with sexual Bigfoot details (TMI to some), I find it interesting that money, financial support, relationships, sexual affairs, mental health histories, criminal records, job records, human marriages and divorces, conflicts of interests, and farm ownership questions are not more openly being discussed by the promoters of the Carter Farm incidents.

Unanswered questions lead to unanswered feelings, conjecture, and distrust. So yes, Jerry, please follow the money, for starters!

++++ Additionally, in response to Jerry’s column, Will Duncan posted the following photo:

PHOTOGRAPH REMOVED DUE TO NASTY EMAILS FROM MARY GREEN. SEE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT, elsewhere.

To which, Bob Coppen’s reply helped really clear up what all those little numbers mean:

Looking at this photo, it struck me as familiar. Then it hit me: It was from 50 Years With Bigfoot! So I grabbed my copy and turned to page 235 and there it was: the aerial photo of the Carter Farm, as big as life! It even had little numbers on it, just like the photo in Will’s post does. And each number was used to indicate a special point of interest. This was done below the photo. The numbers and what they are supposed to represent are listed below: 1. Large oak tree growing out of a deep ditch line where the Bigfoot were fed for 20 years. 2. The farm house. 3. The tree from which Janice watched the Bigfoot. 4. The Bigfoot would often come out into the open here. Sheba especially broke cover in this area. She would come out of the woods with her young who often played all around her. 5. Another area where Janice would climb a pine tree in this one patch of woods to watch the Bigfoot. This was directly across from the Carter home and the area where the girl’s first noticed the monkey face in the trees. 6. The mobile home where Janice, Lila, and their mother, Melvina, lived. Trouble is, the numbers in Will’s photo have been transposed from the ones in my copy of 50 Years. 1 has become 3. 2 has become 5. 3 has become 1. 4 has become 2. 5 has become 4. 6 has been moved to designate the big barn to the right. And in my copy of the book there is no 7 at all. Or does the picture that Will posted come from an earlier edition? So what’s the deal? Does this book change from printing to printing? Has it really been published? Which of these numbers designates what? Where’s Waldo, anyway?

Gerry Bacon also shares his own photos of the "farm" and the invisible mountains in the background.

Why do I feel I now have even more questions about "fifty years" of contacts on this "farm"?