I think it's very unlikely that could actually be a baby's foot. However, I think it is quite possible that this may be a picture of some sort of other marks (warts, bug bites, or the like) that just happened to look like a foot.
Ahh, yes. Very amusing. Your belly gets insanely weird, things poke out, but you definately can't see outlines such as that. Most of the time you can really only guess what's poking out your sides.
Eric
in SoCal
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 | 03:31 PM
It's definitely Photoshop.
1. To see that impression, the amniotic fluid would have to be gone.
2. The angle the foot and leg would have to be at and the force required to make the impression would be impossible for a child that size and strength.
3. The shadowing given the location of the light source is off-the heel and ball of foot and toes are all shadowed at slightly different angles.
Eric
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 | 03:32 PM
Also, the toes are super long-baby's toes are short, short, short.
cheryl
in Florida
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 | 08:20 AM
One way to do this would be to take a picture of an actual newborn's foot -- probably an infant's foot held up against a sheet with a similar lighting source -- and then use Photoshop to feather the edges, correct the color so that the color of the sheet blends with the belly, and place it on the picture of the pregnant belly. So where Eric says that it's not a baby's foot because the toes are too long or that the shadows are off, I think it is more likely that it IS actually a baby's foot -- it would be easier to use a real foot than to try to mimic one with paintbrush tools. The shadows don't really look that "off" to me. Same thing with Matt: I think it would be highly unlikely that it was big bites or warts - the coincidence of a constellation like that, coupled with the fact that it would happen to look like a baby's foot on what happens to be a pregnant belly would be even more interesting than if it was a real baby's foot pressing through, so it doesn't make sense to make that assumption. Otherwise this woman would be hailed as a new religious leader to some fanatics out there (like the people who worship Elvis-shaped potato chips)
LJ
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 04:07 PM
How long do you think that foot is? I think it's about 5 in. (127 mm). Using the formula from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1813413&dopt=Abstract --
The anthropometric formula from this study -- "length of baby= foot length x 6.5 (+/- 20 mm) --is correctly used in 95% of babies." Using 127mm as the foot length, the body would be 825.5mm or 32 inches (+/- 20 mm).
That is one BIG baby to carry around.
Cheryl
in FL
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 05:30 PM
LJ, I assume that what you are saying is that it can't be a real infant's foot because of its size? Now you're just being silly. Use common sense. Of course it can still be a real baby's foot against a sheet or something. THEN, when superimposed over the belly, the artist I guess didn't think to size the foot with scientific accuracy. Plus, if you insist on getting technical, I don't see how you can possibly make such precise calculations without knowing how large that belly is, or without some other reference points -- that woman may be very very petite. Either way, there is NO WAY the foot in the picture is 5 inches long -- 3 maybe.
LJ
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 06:02 PM
Cheryl, I said that it look like 5 inches to me. I'm not the type to go around measuring pregnant bellies. The formula source is referenced, but they may be fools. Because I was ASSUMING the length, and the formula did give a +/_ fudge, I did round off some of the numbers, probably not enough. Thank you for the 3" data. How did you come up with that value?
Can anyone give me an authenticated length? Perhaps, someone has a birth certificate with a foot print, that could be measured.
Cheryl
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 06:37 PM
It was an educated guess -- I didn't measure any bellies either (not sure what you're implying there...) The formula you found is probably fine. The average length of a woman's index finger is about 3 inches. We've all seen enough photos of pregnant women so that we can envision a hand on that belly. Or just look at the "Dusty Brand" photo in the ad at the top of the page for starters. And 3 inches is also a good guess for he average length of a newborn's foot -- so it appears that the "artist" did a pretty good job with the proportions.
LJ
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 07:21 PM
By the word "Artist" are you saying that the creator is a good photographer, or a good image manipulator? Language is so imprecise.
Let’s wait until I can show it to my GYN or until people write in with the information on birth certificates. It might be interesting to get the birth body lengths, too. That way we could check the formula independently. I just want to tell snopes.com if the picture is a hoax or not. And be able to verify it.
Onward to the great answers of the Universe.
Cheryl
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 07:49 PM
...A good image manipulator. I mean think about it. What are the chances that not only will a baby do this "miraculous" thing (Eric gives the best reasons why that is obvious) but also that a professional photographer would HAPPEN to have a camera pointing at it? (I say "professional" because the shot of the belly is a lovely shot from a photographic standpoint, so I'm guessing it was professionally taken with the foot idea in mind, probably for some clever ad campaign somewhere) Ok, let's say that is the case and this photo is real: The mother would have to have known it would happen and so that means it happened frequently before the photo was taken. Why she would waste her time hiring a photographer before getting on Oprah or Letterman is beyond me...
Where an OB/GYN disputes that this photo could ever take place physically because of the inches of tissue between a baby's foot in utero and the skin of the Mother's abdomen. I actually had someone write me this week to tell me it was one of their relatives!!! LOL When I tried to dispute it with her, she swore it was her cousin Rhonda's picture.... who is due in August. Meanwhile the pic has been out there for way longer than that.
So there ya have it... it's a hoax for sure.
Noira
in lala Land
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 04:24 PM
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
OF COURSE THIS PICTURE IS REAL!
That's me, six years ago! My sister took the picture (she's an OB/GYN) just before my daughter was born.
LJ
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 05:00 PM
After 5 hours of research, I called my GYN. She laughed her head off and said she was just going to add to her answering message, "If you are calling with an emergency, call 911 immediately. If you are calling about the foot picture, the answer is that it is a hoax."
Then she slyly added that the baby may have torn the uterus and put his foot through the hole to the skin.
If that was the case, the idiot taking the picture should have been calling 911, because the woman was in critical condition.
How many people are going to say the picture is of them? Are you related to Tammy's friend who swears that it was her as the mother?
Please, remember, I said I wanted verifiable facts.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 | 11:18 AM
Can someone else please explain to Noira why we don't believe her?
Cheryl
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 | 11:43 AM
In this day and age of digitally-manipulated-everything, I think that a truly "verifiable fact" has gone the way of the dinosaur. "Common sense" needs to make a comeback, and quickly.
