<meta-snarky response />

That's supposed to be a bear?

I am a diehard skeptic when it comes to this sort of thing - nothing yet has convinced me that Sasquatch or other fabled creatures exist. And this photo is hardly dispositive proof of anything - could be a typical monkey.

However, there's no way it's a bear. One glance at the photo labeled "Unclassified Primate 1" or "Image 1 Creature" should prove that.

The extended back leg has all the wrong anatomy for a bear: it's not short and stumpy and muscular; it's extended and sinewy. It's built more for reaching than for power.

Bears don't have knees like this animal - this animal's knee looks flexible enough for kicking.

Bears also don't have hips like that. A bear's pelvis and lumbar spine position its hind legs underneath it - good for running and power. Makes sense for a typically four-legged creature. This creature's hind legs are oriented parallel to its spine, as with a biped, and it can stretch its legs back in exactly the manner that a bear can't.

I can only claim amateur physiologist status - my studies ended with the undergrad premed sequence, completed back in '97 - but the anatomic discrepancies between this creature and a bear seems plain as day to me.

- David Stein