While it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind, there's no credible evidence that points more strongly toward bear than primate. Think it through. Every DNA sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear. Every hair sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear. Even Sykes' bear turned out to be known. The evidence isn't there to support the idea of an unknown bear. There are, however, DNA samples that came back unknown primate, there are tracks that point toward unknown primate, and there are hair samples that point towards unknown primate. Consider also the dentition evidence from BTW's bone finds: primate, not bear. There are no known bears with opposable thumbs, that walk upright, with nails instead of claws, and so on. No bears I know of have hooded noses, none have truly flat faces .. even the giant flat faced bear had a substantial snout, just smaller.
However, while bigfoot is unproven, all of those characteristics are proven characteristics of primates.
What I saw ... was primate, not bear.
So, while there is a slight possibility of an unknown bear out there, if one exists, it is in addition to, not a replacement for, the unknown primate Patty represents. This is one of those situations where I think Occam's Razor applies. There is no evidence I know of for bigfoot being a bear that isn't even more supportive of it being a primate.
MIB
No, it most absolutely certainly does not.
MIB