I have studied the evidence for Bigfoot since the 1960s when I was quite young and there is a lot more evidence than most know. Some prefer to simply say they can't exist and I sympathize with that since it is pretty hard to believe something like Bigfoot could exist without proof. Because I'm a scientist, I can't just ignore the evidence which I am aware and for me the evidence points to a probable real creature, very human like. Bigfoot feet have been measured from tracks to be 6 inches (obviously even smaller when toddlers) to 22 inches. Interestingly, the largest feet were from up north in Canada where it is cold which makes sense since there is a rule in biology, Bergman's rule, that states animals will typically be larger in the colder regions. There are even larger ones reported but I find them outside the range of reasonably possible and the stories that go with them aren't very credible. The famous one at Bluff Creek of the female walking away was 14.5 inches. The Bigfoot cast from Bluff Creek that was brought to newspaper in Eureka (not the film subject) where the name Bigfoot was coined was almost 17 inches and that is a pretty standard length for a large male. Bluff Creek had at least 4 different sets of tracks. There is some controversy regarding the tracks here since it is also where Wallace had fake feet and some blame the entire Bigfoot phenomenon on him but they do so out of almost complete ignorance of the evidence. Ray Wallace's fake feet wouldn't fool very many people, even non experts.
Although Bigfoot prints appear to be very human looking, there are in fact some inhuman characteristics beyond the length. They are much broader than a human foot. Even with their great surface area, a common characteristic of them is how deep they sink into the ground. The famous one that was filmed by Roger Patterson sunk deeper than Roger Patterson's horse but he kept very small horses to he could transport them easily to the wilderness. Still that indicates a very heavy weight.
It is always pretty easy for me to debunk skeptics. I'm a skeptic but I'm an informed skeptic. I have actually gone looking for evidence myself. The food intake would probably be similar to that of a single bear or an elk. There are thousands of elk roaming the wilderness. There are thousands of Bears. There are hundreds of thousands of deer and other animals. These animals live in the forests going about their daily lives sometimes without anyone having a clue about their existence. Just to debunk the claim that footprints aren't found in track ways, the foot prints found by Titmus after the Patterson film was made were tracked for over a mile up the hill and many were photographed and cast. Some were quite interesting and reveal much about the foot.
This one is called the Laverty print
Patterson holds a couple in some famous picture. Anyway the point is that sometimes the prints go for miles and they typically show a flexible foot that can walk over objects, sometimes on the object such as rocks and behave as a real foot would.
Another one that comes to mind is called Cripple foot. It was followed for miles after it left Lake Washington
I personally came across a set of tracks on the hill above Bluff Creek but they were melted in snow and there wasn't much left in detail but the stride was much longer than mine. I grew up tracking animals in the snow. I'm not the best tracker out there but I know tracks pretty well. These were something I couldn't identify.
Bigfoot are commonly reported on or near a river. In Alaska, they are referred to by Native Americans as Otter people and they typically made masks with sea urchin spines in their face which symbolized their love for sea urchins. They also are commonly reported as digging clams. I lived near Tacoma, Washington for two years and I know how rich the resources are there. If you add river and ocean food, including salmon, there is more than enough food. It used to host an abundance of Grizzly Bears so there isn't any reason it couldn't support a few shy hominids. That doesn't mean they are there but it can't credibly be used as a reason to exclude them. Regarding warmth and shelter, last I looked, Grizzly and elk do fine without it and in fact thrive in that environment.
Since Native Americans lived in places like Bluff Creek, any tools found there would be attributed to them. There are very few stories of bigfoot using tools however some Native Americans referred to them as Stick People suggesting they carried around sticks. If you investigate the Native American legends, it is hard to separate fact from fiction and you would have to conclude it is mostly stories but I think it is interesting evidence since they essentially describe the same thing, a very large hairy man that walks around at night. Native Americans have over a 100 different names in various parts of the country. If Bigfoot isn't real, just that fact alone is amazing.
This picture below was reported to be from a game camera and as you can see it wasn't taken long ago. If it is fake, it is a very clever fake because it isn't a human foot. The ankle is too far forward, the heel too long, and the toes are evenly sized as is consistent with Bigfoot tracks. There is also a feature shown here which shows the double ball which is also fairly universal but it isn't always easy to make out. Anyway that foot apparently isn't that big and is within normal human size but I'm not sure how the owner of the photo came to that conclusion. I don't know much about it honestly and only seen it recently but thought I would post here since I found it pretty interesting.