29 Responses to “Big Borneo Bigfoot Prints”

1. bill green responds: June 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

   hey everyone, wow these are very interesting new photos of big borneo bigfoot prints. i like the new article about the footprints as well. thanks bill green

2. joppa responds: June 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

   Ah, the Cardiff giant gets around.

3. springheeledjack responds: June 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

   I am all about BF,

   But 47 inch prints…I am suspicious…only because that is some really huge specimen…not that it isn’t possible, but highly improbable…

   On the other foot,…something that big…honestly, judging the imprint from the photograph, I would say that it is probably a forgery, only because I would expect the impression to be deeper from something that big in the mud…with a 47 inch print, we are talking about something weighing significantly more than your average bear…AND the prints look tooooooooooooooooo neat…for the mud…

   that’s my first impression…prove me wrong…

4. cmgrace responds: June 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am

   That’s not a Bigfoot print, it’s a print from the Jolly Green Giant!! Okay in all seriousness, the prints look fairly neat an trim to me as well. I suspect a hoax.

5. Andrew Minnesota responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am

   it would be great if someone would be able to make a cast, and get it to some professionals to inspect. In a print that big (and clean) epidermal ridges should be visible if it’s a genuine print. It would really be something if there was a creature this large there. A giant gigantopithecus perhaps?

6. Sharmz responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:03 am

   Wow that could be made by a relative of Queen Kong they found in Borneo in one of the King Kong movies…

   On a serious note, why only two prints found?

7. TaishaMcGee responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:06 am

   With the latest criticisms of us Cryptomundians implying that we are all debunkers and none believers, I hesitated to comment. Then I thought…”whatevs”. So here goes:

   Robert Ladlow’s feet were 18½ inches long and he was 8′11″ tall.

   Unless the suspected cryptid was, indeed, over twenty feet tall, or possessing genetically anomalous feet, it is unlikely that this is legitimate. Not impossible, but unlikely.

   No one has seen a 20+ foot unknown species walking around? No one has felt the impact of his stride? The impressions did not appear to be deep enough for an animal/hominid of that size and weight.

   That’s just my two-penny observation.

8. mystery_man responds: June 13th, 2008 at 2:05 am

   I have to agree with the other posters here on the implausibility of the size of these prints. It is hard to imagine that something would have feet that big unless it was an incredibly large animal. I am willing to keep an open mind, but a 20 foot tall hominid with no precedent, roaming around undetected is stretching it. And a true giant like that is what it would have to be in order to have such huge feet, in which case you not only have to explain why it has gone so effectively hidden, you also have to explain why there is no hint of a twenty foot tall biped, or indeed anything like one, in the fossil record.

   So maybe the creature is “normal” bigfoot size, say, in the 7 to 10 foot tall range. Well, if the creature is smaller, why would it have such huge feet in proportion to its body? 47 inches is really quite considerable. If we ignore the sensationalism, and try thinking of this from an evolutionary standpoint, what does it have to gain from such unwieldy feet? Is anything else adapted in a similar way in the area? For that matter, are there any other large land animals at all that have feet so grossly disproportionate to their body size? Or any mammals that are or have ever been 20 foot tall, and fully bipedal? Sure, don’t discount the possibility, but let’s at least look at this realistically.

   Now yes, of course we are talking about a purported unknown creature here, and we can’t claim to know much about it. And I know fossil records are incomplete. But, I think just from a realistic viewpoint, taking into consideration certain evolutionary and biological trends that we know of, good old fashioned physics, as well as the available known evidence, fossil or otherwise that points to or even hints at even the possibility of this creature or related creatures being a real, biological entity (scant, to say the least), we should take these prints with a grain of salt.

   And like Sharmz said, why only two prints? And look at the angle of the two prints. The alleged creature obviously stepped around that fence since it is still standing, but if you look at the way the footprints face, does that look like a natural way to plant a foot when trying to sidestep a fence? Try putting your feet in that position around an object like that. Awkward, isn’t it?

   Yes, I’m skeptical of these.

9. Loren Coleman responds: June 13th, 2008 at 5:49 am

   Forwarded comment in French, from:

   Jean luc Drevillon 13/06/08

   Bonjour à tous.

   Merci Loren pour cette information.

   Ces empreintes me laissent dubitatif. Vu leur taille, leur auteur est à classer parmi les “vrais géants” mais pourquoi dans ce cas là ont-elles cinq orteil au lieu de quatre? Il n’y a que deux empreintes, un pieds gauche et un pied droit, où sont les précédentes et les suivantes?

   Les empreintes montrent que le sujet ne possède pas de voûte plantaire mais elles n’affichent pas le fameux monticule de la jointure métatarsienne, ce qui indique que le pied est posé verticalement au sol et non roulé de l’arrière vers l’avant. La trace est cernée par une crête de pression étroite et élevée ce qui indique que le pied a été posé doucement au sol et non rapidement.

   On aurait aimé avoir des empreintes des même pieds pour voir si il y avait une modification de la place des orteils comme ceux-ci affichent une certaine mobilité. Le chemin des deux empreintes colle étroitement à la barrière en faisant un virage, la créature après avoir imprimé son pied gauche devant la barrière, en imprimant son pied droit ensuite, devrait soulever sa jambe gauche au-dessus de l’angle de la barrière pour pouvoir la passer.

   Si ceci est un canular, une machine hydraulique aurait été nécessaire pour tamponner verticalement les empreintes dans le sol dur, mais on n’indique pas de traces de roues ou de chenilles, puis comment faire une virage si serré contre la barrière?

   Si c’est un canular, parce que ça en a fortement l’odeur, la solution est qu’on ait finement sculpté deux planches de bois, un pied gauche et un pied droit et puis des enfants suffisamment légers pour ne pas laisser de traces les auraient posées sur les lieux et seraient montés dessus à 10 par exemple pour simuler la pression d’un poids important s’exerçant verticalement et en douceur dans le sol.

   Si les empreintes avaient été faites par un roulement de l’arrière vers l’avant des planches de bois, elles n’auraient pas été plates et auraient présenter un bombage convexe de la plante du pied.

10. shumway10973 responds: June 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am

    ok, I’ve looked closely to the footprint. When it was made, it looks to have been made the way a footprint would be made–in other words heel to toe. Notice how far in the toe prints are compared to the rest. The bottom of the “foot” is not flat like many hoaxes are (especially anything this large would be too difficult), but instead there is shape to the bottom of the foot.

    The only thing that I think is curious is the pic with the little boys where they are measuring the print, maybe it’s just the lighting, but look at it from just behind the “pinkie” toe back to approximately 1/2 way down the measuring tape looks added on. I can see a smaller foot, in length, that I think fits the toes in size better. you can notice this because the outside edge (to the right) is flatter and reflecting the light better/brighter. The area that looks more “natural” for a type of bigfoot has more of the shape I talked about above, therefore more shadows and less area to reflect. That heel looks awkward to me anyway. How long is the average sasquatch print for an average 8 to 11 feet height reported?

11. Kimble responds: June 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    *IF* it is authentic, something that big has got to leave a trail of crushed vegetation in its wake.

12. cmgrace responds: June 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Can anybody translate the French comment?

13. Alton Higgins responds: June 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    With apologies to Jean luc Drevillon and thanks to Babelfish, here’s a rough paraphrase (not a transliteration or exact translation) of his comments. Someone else needs to help with the short final paragraph.

    Since I don’t speak French, I certainly cannot be sure regarding the original intent. It appears at different points that he is arguing both for and against the possible validity of the prints. I tried to convey my impression of what he wrote as an American might say it.

    ***************************************************
    Jean luc Drevillon 13/06/08

    Hello to everyone.

    Thank you Loren for this information.

    I’m dubious regarding these prints. It looks like that, considering their size, the maker of the prints should be classified among the “True Giants,” but, if so, one must wonder why, in this case, we see five toes instead of four? Also, there are only two prints, a left foot and a right foot. Where are the preceding and subsequent prints?

    The prints show that the subject’s foot does not possess an arch, but the well-known metatarsal joint also appears to be absent. This indicates that the impression was formed on the ground vertically, not rolled from the back forwards. A narrow raised pressure ridge encircles the imprint, indicating that the “foot” was pressed gently and slowly, not quickly, onto the ground.

    One would have liked to have additional prints of the same feet to see whether or not there was a modification of toe placement, since toes possess some mobility. Also, the left foot is placed in front of the enclosure, but the right foot is placed near the fence, indicating that the creature would have stepped over the barrier to be able to pass it.

    If this is a hoax, a hydraulic machine would have been needed to stamp the prints into the hard ground, but there is no indication of wheels or caterpillar treads, and how could such a machine make a tight turn against the barrier?

    Actually, I do think this smells like a hoax, and I think the solution is that two planks of wood were carved into a left foot and a right foot. Then several children, perhaps up to ten or so, light enough in weight so as to not leave tracks themselves, stood on the planks to simulate a great weight being exerted vertically and carefully on the ground.

    If the prints had been created by a back-to-front placement of the wooden planks, “they would not have been punts” and they “would have to present a convex bending of the plant of the foot” [Babelfish translation].

14. cryptothekid responds: June 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    This reeks of a hoax. I mean, look at all the publicity its getting, thats just what the hoaxers wanted.

15. gghg responds: June 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    I just thought I would point out that in the photo where you can see both footprints in relation to each other, that there is some kind of small building to the left of the track path. The first print appears to be a left foot print and then a subsequent right foot print. Now correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t that building be in the pathway of a creature large enough to make these tracks, if indeed they were genuine? Just my thoughts from a quick review of the evidence shown.

16. red_pill_junkie responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Obviously the two prints point directly to the local movie theater, where the new Hulk movie has just opened
    Ok, ok, enough horsing around. I mean, we should ask ourselves this: can the human body be scaled to such enormous proportions? the answer I believe is no. We have all seen the movies of giant insects and mutant animals destroying everything in their wake, but physics tells us there’s a very good reason why a mouse couldn’t grow to the size of an elephant and be able to support its own weight, let alone stand. When you double the size the weight DOES NOT double, it increases 8-fold!

    So, how much would a 20′ ape-like creature would weigh? 3 tons? Keep in mind a gorilla weights 200 kg, and now let’s ask ourselves if a bipedal ape-like creature could support that much weight.

    There’ a reason why the T-Rex had such humongous thigh bones and such puny little arms.

17. Ranatemporaria responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Just adding to a few points touched on by mystery man, all other suspicions aside, from an ecological view point there may be many reasons for having disproportionately large feet. One example would be weight displacement/distribution allowing for passage over soft ground (hence the shallow impression). In terms of being 20ft high there is little or no certainty to be got from foot size, the gate or stride will give more useful information on that, surely? Is there any info on this?

    It is always very hard to speculate with any acuracy upon the proportions or rules that may or may not apply to creatures which by their nature are unknown.

    Having said all that these ‘prints’ do resemble a very neat childlike interpretation of a large human foot!…

18. CamperGuy responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Isn’t it obvious the creature is more accustomed to the water and the oversized feet are used as flippers?

    The actual animal is probably similar to “Tweety bird” with very large feet and small body.This is why it hasn’t been spotted before. It is hidden in tall grass while seekers are looking for tree tall giants.

    Since the mystery tweety is aquatic it’s feet were wet and the water softened the soil leaving the footprints. No more footprints were left because the first set absorbed all of the water.

    These huge flipper feet may also allow the mystery tweety to jump like the incredible hulk (reportedly only a fictional character).

    Being aquatic it would live in an underground cave system and thus remain unknown to unsuspecting humans of the “above world’.

    I hope this post is taken as seriously as the footprints.

    Suggested further research Marvel comic books and the cartoon channel.

19. mystery_man responds: June 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    ranatemporaria- yes, these are reasons for big feet, but these are on an order of magnitude bigger than other known animal’s feet in comparison to body size, especially large land mammals, especially a bipedal one. In my opinion, it would be very odd. It’s interesting to speculate about, but my estimate is they would be too unwieldy and the disadvantages would outweigh any adaptive benefits to be had. The 20 foot size was just from the reports given and is written in the article above. There is nothing approaching it on record as far as bipedal land mammals go.

    As far as unknown animals, we can still look for trends in other life on Earth in similar biomes and get an idea of what kinds of physical dimensions are likely to be seen. These feet just seem very unlikely considering what we do know. I mean, look at those feet! Anyway, like I said, interesting to speculate on, but I am very skeptical of these.

20. greatanarch responds: June 13th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Didn’t Herodotus write about people with feet so big that they could lie on their backs and use them as sunshades?

    I’m already planning my expedition to Borneo to look for Homo megapodus.

    It’s just about as likely as a biped 24 ft tall. It would weight more than a T. Rex, and probably break its legs when it tried to walk.

21. cryptidsrus responds: June 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Whoa Nelly!!!

    Definitely worth examinining further. But…

    I agree with Ranatemporaria. This looks too “clean,” too human-like. Red_Pill_Junkie also made a good point. A creature that enormous would shatter its own legs. Very suspicious.

22. gavinfundyk responds: June 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    When I first saw this, I was sure that proof of the Bigfoot Big Top Circus had been found. But….
    What if there is a error in the original article and the print is 47 centimeters? That comes out to 18-1/2 inches, which does fit far better.

23. mystery_man responds: June 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    red_pill_junky, cryptidsrus- Well, there were those huge creatures called dinosaurs that were able to support such mass, so it is precedented for very large creatures like the one proposed. Just not for very large bipedal animals or as you very correctly assert, insects.

    Like I said before, these are 47 inches long. that is FOUR FEET. If the creature was only 8 or 9 feet tall, that would make it’s feet about half its body length. Now, if I could see trends for this tendency towards huge, huge feet as a successful evolutionary route in other large land animals, I might bite. But as it is, this would be a very strange adaptation compared to what we see in other animals adapted to the same kinds of habitats. Same goes for a biped reaching 20 feet tall. Well, there WAS King Kong.
    The absurd size of these feet just doesn’t wash with me. I’ll admit there are many surprises in nature, and we don’t know even close to everything. But these feet on an actual animal of the type proposed seem very unlikely in my opinion.

24. gkingdano responds: June 13th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    JUST A VILLAGE $$$$ MAKING HOAX! They probably made lots of money on STUPID press people coming to town to see the two (and only 2) world record bigfoot prints. I am sure that the local hotel and soft drink stand prices went up for that day. And there were probably many locals that would take them to where they “saw” it ( of course for a small fee).

25. mystery_man responds: June 13th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    Nature tends to stick with what works. In other words, in any habitat, you can often see certain patterns in the types of adaptations that develop in response to survival needs. These can be similar even across vastly different species, hence convergent evolution, so even with new species, we tend to see adaptations that fit into what we know and make sense in relation to the particular niche the animal fills. It is rare to find new animals that completely defy everything we know and break through all paradigms and conventions. Certainly, it does happen, but I find myself doubting this is the case here.

    Maybe there are land animals with feet half as long as their body, maybe even primates or hominids, but I think when looking at these prints we have look for cues in other life forms and ask ourselves how likely that is compared to all the other adaptations we have seen towards the same environmental conditions among the other land mammals on Earth. The only way I see these feet working is with an adequately large animal, and if this is the case, then I’d be interested in it’s evolutionary development, why a bipedal land mammal displays such extreme giganticism (there are reasons, but why this one? Why now?), and why there is no hint of anything like it in any fossil records.

26. Richard888 responds: June 14th, 2008 at 5:11 am

    @ gavinfundyk:
    If you look at Picture 4, the footprints look as big as the kids standing near them. I think it’s equally unlikely that those kids are 18 inches tall.

    @ those who say they are hard to fake:
    If sculptors can make realistic statues out of clay, fake prints in the same medium should be no more difficult. One wouldn’t have to run wearing fake shoes. That might explain why there are only two?

27. Spinach Village responds: June 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Woww!…… this is definitely King Kong Esq
    This has monster quest written all over it….

    Based on what see debunking would be premature and purely speculatory…

    Confirming it would be too, but wow… this is a new twist in sasquatchness

    If this animal exist then I see no reason why it wouldn’t have legs proportioned to fit its body, name animals that don’t.

    The terrain has changed since the footprints were discovered..
    remember that they had been “clearing the path anticipating visitors”

    So although there are only 2 tracks… it is not the original context….

    Wait a second Borneo?…. they have that HUGE rain forest (which by the way is being destroyed by legal and illegal logging) ..anyhow new species are still being discovered there, interesting…

28. mystery_man responds: June 16th, 2008 at 7:11 am

    Spinach Village- Name anything like a 20 foot tall bipedal land mammal.

    That is my whole point, the animal would have to be proportioned to fit these feet which would mean a pretty huge animal if these prints are four feet long. I am not aware of any evidence of a bipedal land mammal approaching the 20 feet except for these prints which I feel are questionable (although there have been some animals such as the giant sloths the largest of which have been pretty close to 20 feet high). That or it is a very unique adaptation of extreme foot size on a smaller bipedal animal, which is also rather lacking in evidence. I would say take these prints with a grain of salt for now and don’t get too excited just yet.

    I admit the idea is interesting, but it is not very strongly backed up at this point in time.

29. CryptidHuntr responds: June 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    The first and 5th toes are huge as well as the whole print(i think thats a little obvious). It would be relatively easy to fake this. Its abnormally large for a specimin and, likewise, makes me suspicious. Were did the trakx lead to? Did they lead anywhere at all? Or was there just 2 prints? That makes me even more suspicious.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|