Comments on: Borneo Big Footprints: Jokes?

By: Sordes

Sordes — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:23:38 +0000

There is an additional note: Why should a humanoid giant with 47 inch long feet be 9m high? The relation between foot-length and height among humans is roughly 1:6, and a very big humanoid would need proportionally bigger feet to support its weight (as weight increases with the cube, but the are of the feet not). So even with typical human proportions a height of 7m would be much more probable. Given the thing with the increasing foot size and probable shorter legs (humans have very long legs compared to apes), a hypothetical height of somewhere between 5 and 6m would be much more probable, with such a creature with 47inch long feet would exist. As it would have a weight of about 2500kg at minimum, the impressions of its feet would be also much deeper in mud.

By: fooks

fooks — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:31:43 +0000

one would think there would be a pivot on the closest footprint?

By: Spinach Village

Spinach Village — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:16:52 +0000

The weight sunken down into the ground was definitely something I wanted to mention (ask about)

I did wonder if the track depth was in proportion with the suggested size of the animal, but due to all the doubts already stated, I decided not to pile on.

So the villagers have that much free time on there hands?

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:49:44 +0000

Good posts, Mystery_Man…

Hit it right on the head.

Alton Higgins: It wasn’t as obvious to us “ignorant” people that this was a “hoax” as it was to you. I had doubts about this too from the beginning but kept an open mind.

Is this somehow connected with the “Criticize but don’t call it a hoax” flap some posts ago involving PhotoExpert?

(Smile).

I guess so. Hmmm…

By: CamperGuy

CamperGuy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:58:35 +0000

Does this mean my prehistoric tweety bird theory might be based on a hoax ?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:24:29 +0000

Alton Higgins- I don’t think so. I think people have been mostly saying in a nice and well reasoned way that these are bogus.

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:05:09 +0000

?? Surely no one seriously doubted that this was a joke or hoax?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:45:52 +0000

captainnemo- I see exactly what you mean. I noticed that at first too but didn’t say anything because I figured maybe it was just my own interpretation. Now that you’ve mentioned it I don’t feel as if I was just seeing things.

Good idea about making the soil moist first to set in the tracks. I think this could have been done without a prosthetic foot. Someone could make the basic shape of a foot and toes by just pressing the ground with their hands or some tool, like sculpturing, and if the ground around where they were working was solid enough, their own footprints would not be visible.

By: captiannemo

captiannemo — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:15:14 +0000

It looks like the soil was made moist so the imprints could be made. If you look at the first photo, you can see what looks like finger impressions in the mud around the heel.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:08:47 +0000

Speaking of fence, did anyone find hair there? I figure that whether the big guy went around or clipped the fence there might be hair somewhere there. I kinda figured this was the conclusion. I still say if you look at the pics of the prints someone added the outside and heel to a former “big foot” cast, or something like that. By the way, just how deep would footprints be for someone that size on hard ground? I know that on mud we would be looking at the creature stuck up to the knee, at least.