Comments on: Bigfoot vs Mummy

By: crgintx

crgintx — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:04:38 +0000

This may be a surviving a Giganto. Since no full skeletons have been recovered, we don’t know if they are bipedal or knuckle walkers. From the teeth found, we do know that there at least 3 times as big as largest orangutan. Even a knuckle walker that size would be over 6 ft tall when walking and upright probably 8 ft or taller. When compared that with 5′-5 1/2′ tall and 120 lbs human male of a 40 centuries ago when modern humans entered the area, Giganto would have seemed like something from a nightmare.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:33:15 +0000

The casts look to be more for a large orangutan or something than what I have always concidered of bigfoot origin. The shape is all wrong for something to successfully walk upright all the time. Besides some of those casts are just huge. Wouldn’t it be difficult to get those big feet thru such thick jungles? I know I would be tripping and catching my toes on everything.

By: OKCurious

OKCurious — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:36:54 +0000

I would agree that it’s important for a large group of critical experts to see these remains, casts, etc. This would allow for documentation, analysis and peer review of findings. So far all they want to do is say they have these amazing things, but “oh, no! You can’t see them!”

By: jjames1

jjames1 — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:52:29 +0000

By the way, I’m officially stealing the title BIGFOOT VS. MUMMY, and pitching it to the Sci-Fi Channel as one of their Saturday night movie premieres.

By: BadState

BadState — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:00:06 +0000

This is the first time I’ve seen the Johor casting. It looks like two prints superimposed to me — like a person stepped into a bear’s footprint or vice versa.

By: Sky King

Sky King — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:21:02 +0000

NO WAY the Mummy can beat Bigfoot, unless McMahon’s booking the match! Put your money on Sasquatch, baby!

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:03:09 +0000

I always thought the shape was strange too. Sure it could have become like this from rain or other factors, but it still doesn’t seem to be a natural looking print for a creature of this type. What would be the biological advantage of evolving highly spread toes like that and a relatively small heel? Nature usually has a very good reason for developing certain traits and looking at that print the way it is, well, it just doesn’t seem like a form that would benefit a bipedal creature of this type. As far as I can see, it doesn’t look at all like any known type of animal, certainly no primate type animals that I know of, and usually nature sticks with what works so you would expect a logical bipedal type shape. If this is real, I wonder what other strange adaptations it has developed.

By: eireman

eireman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:14:44 +0000

The fact that they’ve gone “mummy mad” casts shadows of doubt on their reputation as serious researchers and calls into question the legitimacy of any previous findings. Or, at the very least, it calls into question their ability to analyze and authenticate any tracks they might investigate. This is always the problem - and the dangerous lure - of getting too excited about apocryphal finds half a world away. It takes more than photographs. The credibility of both the evidence and the investigators have to be questioned, especially in a field fraught with hoaxes, confabulation and self-delusion.

By: plastercaster

plastercaster — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:38:59 +0000

The Seekers and the Singapore Paranormal Investigators combined forces in Johor last Feb but seem to have gone mummy-mad of late.

By: eireman

eireman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:35:34 +0000

There’s a museum of natural history in Idaho I think that has set up an exhibit, which I think it terribly progressive - even if it was done just to get more foot traffic. But if the end result is a more scholarly focus on the subject in a respectable venue, then I think that’s great. Such a place might be willing to house reputable evidence.