Assuming the creature exists, all that you have is a description of its external appearance. Now, have you ever compared a reconstruction of a Smilodon[/b] with a reconstruction of a Thylacosmilus ? The first is a placentary mammal, the second a marsupial. They were very similar, saber-teeth included. So, since nothing is known about bigfoot other than speculation, why canpt I suppose that they evolved from squirrels or from marsupials to occupy the same niches giant hominids would occupy?
Here´s my cryptozoology “theoryâ€: Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.
Enjoy your time debunking it.
But please note that the only goal is to check the quality of evidence being used to create suppositions on bigfeet´s alleged affinity with hominids as well as how sure one can be of theses speculations.
I seem to recall there was a discussion about my use of the word "claims" after that. 
BTW, your bigfeetsus seems to be catching on. Check the flame war section for me and Rimmer's (carcharodon) thread. (Actually someone commented on you and bigfeetsus not too long ago in this thread, I think.)
