Having seen plenty of bears on my visits to Yosemite and also on TV and such, I don’t know how someone might confuse a bear standing on its hind legs with a giant ape-like creature unless they have never seen either a bear or an ape.
Half of the Daily Mail headlines are like this.
I’m with her, she lost all that weight to date Bigfoot and now California says it’s just a bear.
To be honest I think she should go with the trend and choose the bear.
Standard Daily Mail fare here.
There’s no such thing as ‘a Bigfoot’.
Bigfoot is a proper noun, if you saw him, you didn’t see a bigfoot, you saw the Bigfoot. But more likely it was some lesser Sasquatch.
^/s
Edit: Does Lemmy’s markdown not support superscript?
There’s no hierarchy in the sasquatch society. To them, ‘bigfoot’ is a slur. ‘Skunk ape’ is strangely a term of endearment (to them, we are their ‘skunk apes’, on account of the smell) ‘Hairy man’ is unnessecarily gendered. ‘Orang Pendek’ is fine, but also gendered. Wood ape’ is a bit simplified, but fine. Yowie is used proudly by the Austral version, but secretly used as a bit of a slur by the North American variant to describe their southern cousins.
The Peladiens diplomatically refer to them as ‘The honorable inhabitants’’ (in contrast to humans, referred to just as ‘the inhabitants’)
Excuse me, sir, but I have not only seen a Bigfoot, I have been inside a Bigfoot.
Here is a Bigfoot: