Damn shame you typed all of that
Why would it be a chimpanzee
it was an obvious joke but you high on debunk so you re going on a 56 second rant
I’m guessing you didn’t click my link
In the photo, you can clearly see each bear has ears, even in yours with mange bears.
If it was a bear with hair problems, wouldn’t the ears be more noticeable
If your answer starts with “no....” save yourself the trouble and don’t reply.
You’re wasting your time
"I don't care if it's too small, hanging out with other bears, walking on all fours, just outside Pittsburgh, and all the leg proportions are wrong. I can't find the ears against a black background in a blurry-ass photo, so I'm calling it a Bigfoot!"
If that's all you need as evidence, how do you know it's not a blurry chupacabra? Why not a werewolf? A vampire? Why not the Missouri Beaman Monster? Hell, it could be a Kappa Water Imp:
That looks WAY closer to fitting the proportions of the photo than "Bigfoot" does.
You're trying to claim that a giant mythical ape-man lives a couple hours outside Pittsburgh, and your best evidence is, "I saw a blurry black photo of a skinny four-legged bear, with other bears, and I couldn't make out the ears.
You right that I'm wasting my time.
Last edited: