I've not spent much time on the general board in a very long time. Hiflier, I always appreciate your contributions, but I just think you are taking the easy way out on this one. To suggest that BF is somehow the human embodiment of a bear is simply taking two well-known things and smooshing them together to conveniently explain one truly unknown thing: BF. An apple and and orange might be familiar and understandable, but smashing them together does not make an exotic star fruit. Bad analogy, buy you get the idea.
Why can't the unexplainable Bigfoot be just that--a creature completely unknown and currently beyond our comprehension? For myself, other than its size and hair, I don't see any correlations of BF to a bear. To a human, yes. But I don't watch the Patty film and see any resemblance to a bear. None. And, the "Ohio howl" that boomed down the valley at dawn one morning in N. Californa (Penn Valley area) was both primate-like and other-worldly. Nothing bear-like about that thunderous wail.
Sheri's post was as far as I could go in this thread. I think she nails it. And her comment about "if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" is spot on. I just feel that trying to explain the BF phenomenon with two well-known creatures is too simplistic, and too convenient. No. Just no.