As you may or may not know, I wrote a couple posts about Bfro.net and the top six pieces of proof that Bigfoot lives.
Now, I'm not too sure if a couple well-crafted Bigfoot posts automatically turns me into a bonafide professor on the subject. But, believe it or not, I have been hammered with e-mails asking for my opinion about the recent alleged Bigfoot photographs taken in Elk County, Pennsylvania. (Well, three e-mails actually).
The story is gaining some steam and making the rounds on various, legitimate news websites. As a matter of fact, Yahoo.com ran a front-page story late afternoon on the whole incident.
In order to get you up-to-date on all of the hullaballo, read the Bigfoot Field Researcher Organization's account of the story RIGHT HERE.
My impression is that it's NOT a Bigfoot, but a scrawny, skinny, elderly bear looking for some food. Granted the pictures do look 'primatish' (is that a word?). But, if you compare the bear cubs in Image One to the creatures in the other two pics (including the one above), my opinion is that the creature is way too small to even be considered a bonafide Bigfoot.
"But Eimer, could it be a baby Bigfoot?"
Yeah. Sure. I'm with you. I can see you grasping for straws on that one. But, it's NOT a baby Bigfoot. It's a skinny fucking bear.
So, there you have it. My opinion wrapped up neat and tight. And tied with a bow.
Now, after seeing the evidence, I'm curious. What do you think?