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.

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…

@ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.