I would like to read an explanation regarding what makes the Hoffman "creature" obviously a "man in a suit", also. What is taking so long? What is delaying the individual that Sweati Yeti is relying on, for an analysis?
...As for attributing Joyce's sighting report to something....I can't easily attribute it to both Joyce and her daughter being screwy enough to make-up the sighting...given the fact that her husband supports her story (did she decieve her husband, too...or are all 3 of them in on the deception?)...
How long have you known them? Family members tend to reinforce or participate in delusions and/or hoaxes, when dealing with outsiders. It is an expected response, even if the family members are dubious about the claims, or even flat out don't believe them. The family is a mutual support co-op, by nature.
...and the fact that years after-the-fact, she called me to tell me about it (what did she gain by making the call?)...
Attention? A place in Bigfoot lore? A sense of inclusion? Cults can possess a strong pull on those in need of a sense of belonging. A major factor that plays out in Bigfoot belief is a caste system. At the lower end are the "believers". Elevated above them, by mutual reinforcement, are the "Knowers". Being able to enter Bigfootism, and jumping straight into a higher caste is enticing enough to produce an exciting account.
Kitakaze can easily attribute it to some explanation like that...but I can't.
Why? When logically, it is obviously a story, a misidentification, or she/they were punked?
There should be a scientific method involved in it.
Agreed. But not pseudo-science. The investigation of the Bigfoot/Yeti mystery (at this stage, still a myth), requires the dumping of all hoaxes, tainted "evidence" and evidence rendered dubious by contamination.
There is, though, very strong evidence for it's existence, in the way of sighting reports, footprints, the PG film, the MD Video, hair samples, and vocal and wood-knocking sounds at night.
Is this the sum total of Bigfoot "evidence"? About the PGF... Is this the "best evidence"? A question about the PGF has to be asked. Apologies if this has been asked before, straight out, and answered adequately. If it has, I must have missed it (which is possible).
With the indications presented by others, over the years, but particularly the recent ones, regarding editing of the film, and discrepancies involved in the timeline of events, how can the PGF be even considered potential evidence?
Where is the original? Without the original, it is worthless. All copies are worthless, by themselves. Who examined the "original"? Of those that are supposed to have examined the "original", how can it be verified that they were not checking a copy, presented as "original"? It requires more than old school Bigfoot hunters/researchers, associated individuals, or even nebulous supposed "skeptic" academic/s, back in the 1960's, to "vouch" that what was supposedly "examined", was in fact, untampered, non-edited, original developed film rolls.
What exactly can be verified, about the supposed "original" film, and it's validity as an unedited original developed set of rolls? When was the last time anyone but an enthusiast/proponent examined it? How can it be verified that even this nebulous set of rolls was an original developed set? Where are they now?
How can the PGF be expected to be taken seriously, without an original to examine?
