Fetal Footprint

image I'm late to the party with this image (all the other hoax-related sites have had it up for a couple of weeks), but hey, I was on vacation, and the picture's too good to ignore. Anyway, no one seems to be able to say definitively whether it's real or a fake... or even where it originally came from. It does seem pretty unbelievable that a footprint would be that well defined through the wall of the abdomen. Plus, the foot seems awfully long. And what are those weird bumps in the middle of the foot? But on the other hand, I've heard some women say that this is possible.

Birth/Babies viral images

Posted on Wed Sep 29, 2004


Definitely fake. Sort of amusing though, in a slightly sick way.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Wed Sep 29, 2004  at  08:15 PM
Nicely done, but yah, fake . . . only way it would be that highly defined is if it ripped through a few layers of tissue between the interior of the womb and the skin.
Posted by Jim North  on  Wed Sep 29, 2004  at  10:00 PM
I cannot imagine how that small photo can be evaluated.
Posted by Rick  in  Ohio  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  06:30 AM
I've seen a much larger version, so it's not necessarily that most folks are evaluating based on this thumbnail.

The "bumps" is the ball of the foot; the foot is flexed slightly.

I don't think this is real, because everything is very well defined. The uterus and abdominal muscles would obscure the details, such as toes, that are very evident here.

Yes, sometimes you can see something poking, if you're pregnant, but it's hard to tell if it's an elbow or a heel. If you can't tell the difference and it's your own body, how could toes show up on a photo?
Posted by cvirtue  in  deleted  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  06:43 AM
cool cheese hey,its me when i was a baby.they said they found claw marks on the inside of the utuerus shortly before birth!
Posted by troubledexperiment001  in  uuh....i dont know our adress yet....  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  07:41 AM
That's sort of gross. I could tell where my baby's butt was. It was kind of neat to watch it wiggle back and forth. Her heels were pressed up against the underneath of my ribs...I could see a little lump right there. But I never saw her toes. There's too much tissue in the way.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, Florida, USA  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  09:24 AM
Rick, I was just being stingy with bandwidth. If you click on the image it now opens up a larger version of it.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  11:25 AM
People haven't really believed that this is real...have they?
Posted by Gee...  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  12:52 PM
I bet a lot of people who liked "Alien" thought it was real.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, Florida, USA  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  12:54 PM
This is actually less defined than the arms, feet, hands, butt, etc. that my cousin's wife routinely displayed. (Yes, she would yank up her shirt and show everyone...yes, even in public.)
Posted by Mark  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  01:27 PM
I described this photo to my nurse friend, and she was intrigued. When I showed it to her, though, she just laughed. The woman pictured would have some grave physical problems if her uterus and all the outer tissues were that paper-thin. Since my friend has assisted at C-sections, I have to defer to her expertise.
Posted by Mark Smith  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  03:10 PM
there are OTHER hoax websites????
Posted by john  in  NH  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  03:53 PM
Those weird bumps must be bunions !
Posted by Andy  in  New Zealand  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  05:56 PM
I think it's a fake. I mean the mother must be missing some parts of her internal organs if you can see the toes.
Posted by Dany  in  Texas  on  Fri Oct 01, 2004  at  01:37 PM
It doesn't look like it's a real footprint, but might it be a cluster of warts or some other sort of bumps on the skin?
Posted by Matt  on  Fri Oct 01, 2004  at  05:16 PM
Posted by J.R.  on  Fri Oct 01, 2004  at  05:36 PM
It's neither a real baby's foot nor a photoshopped image. It is in fact from a leaked US military archive including footage (no pun intended) of a Zildar woman impregnated with an Aracleon. The print is so clear because the Aracleon fetus is implanted in the subcutaneous fat layer, not in the womb.
Posted by Paul in Prague  in  Czech Republic  on  Mon Oct 04, 2004  at  07:41 AM
Fake,fake,fake;I mean does the woman not have the wall of a womb or organs between the foetus and the skin?
I have given birth to four children and is pregnant for the fifth time...you CAN
Posted by Evey  on  Wed Oct 06, 2004  at  06:01 AM
The only possible thing that could have occurred here is that the waters had broken earlier in the pregancy, so there was no protective fluids around the baby (that's what happened during my mother's pregancy for me). However, if this was the case, the imprint would not be so defined against such taut skin. It's a fake.
Posted by Dr. Allan Simpson  on  Sun Oct 17, 2004  at  11:46 PM
LOL yeah right that is the most fakest thing on this earth i may only be a teenager but if it was real that could be a serious problem and could kill the baby fast and if this person had any kind of sense they would not be showing this picture all around the world.
Posted by stallo  in  mo  on  Thu Oct 21, 2004  at  06:59 PM
I know from experience that a baby's foot and it's movements can be very visible but not w/ the extreme detail you see in this photo in that it includes the toes and ball of the foot. I am fairly small and was very thin due to extreme "morning" sickness w/ all 3 of my kids. They all grew to be 9# and bigger babies so YES you could just about see them through the thin wall that separated them from the outside world. I could tell my kids' positions anytime by looking or putting my hand on my tummy. My daughter was most interesting, choosing to sit "Indian style" and facing forward for much of her confinement (talk about heartburn! and bruises from kicking forward!)
I really had only the barest amount of skin between us especially w/ the 3rd one and after stretch marks....even my mom thought it was odd but everything was perfectly normal and they're 13-20 yrs old now!
With our first it wasn't uncommon to sit on the bed and watch him push his foot out an inch or more. He'd kick if we pushed it back "in" but we never saw "toes".
Posted by ck  on  Fri Oct 22, 2004  at  04:22 AM
I know that when I was pregnant for the first time my baby moved a lot. I could tell when she had her little bottom pressed up against me. You could see the "lump" move about. But, you could never tell what it was. I just knew what it was becasue of her position. It was a very uncomfortable feeling. If a foot can be that detailed I would think that something was very wrong.
Posted by Connie Thompson  in  Alabama  on  Sat Oct 23, 2004  at  12:39 AM
I asked a doctor about this photo, and he said that the only possible way it could be real is if it shows a baby that has developed outside of the womb. Very rare, but it does happen. But it's much more likely that it's simply a fake photo.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Sat Oct 23, 2004  at  12:48 AM
wouldn't the baby's other foot be more feasable, just because of the position the rest of the baby's body would be in? either he's doing the splits or his entire body is in one-third of her belly. doesn't make sense.
Posted by Christina Parker  on  Tue Oct 26, 2004  at  02:02 PM
Whatever, fake yes, but for a new mother, a first time mother, or anyone with a heart at all, sweet. We all wish that we could see "limbs" like that, and although fake, still brings an awwwwww.
Posted by Molly  on  Fri Oct 29, 2004  at  03:52 PM
I would have to say it's not fake, You just have to be what's called all baby, I was able to tell which toe was what on my daughters foot and laying down you could see her laying on her side
Posted by Sabrina  in  Port Charlotte Florida  on  Tue Nov 02, 2004  at  11:26 AM
Yes fake it may be! But I have to say it is a beautiful photograph. I loved watching my unborn son rolling around and I wondering if it was a arm or a leg! smile
Posted by TC  in  Tasmania  on  Fri Nov 12, 2004  at  01:34 AM
Fake..Fake..Fake! unless the baby is just flaoting around her abdominal cavity and the woman has no uterus..which is totally impossible!!
Posted by Sophia  on  Sun Feb 13, 2005  at  11:43 PM
I saw this pic on one of those circulated emails we all get. As soon as I saw it I said "No way." Any nurse can tell you that the layers of muscle, fascia, and fat would obscure the detail (ok, I admit it's CUTE detail) of the baby foot. If this pic is real, I'm glad I was not her nurse during labor!
Posted by April  on  Mon Feb 21, 2005  at  01:38 PM
This is truley wierd but at the same time it is pretty awsome to have your babies foot on your stomache!But hey who know's that baby could be the next enstine!!
Posted by Ashley Brothers  in  Manchester TN  on  Thu Apr 28, 2005  at  12:54 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.