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



Comments

Definitely fake. Sort of amusing though, in a slightly sick way.
Posted by Big Gary C  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  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  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  06:43 AM
:coolcheese: 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  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  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  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  on  Thu Sep 30, 2004  at  03:53 PM
Those weird bumps must be bunions !
Posted by Andy  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  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
I
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  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  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  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  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! 😊
Posted by TC  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  on  Thu Apr 28, 2005  at  12:54 PM
This photo is real. It's the stomach of my wife's best friend from childhood. The mother's name is Alex G, I can't spell her last name it's Czech. Jak se mate? I don't remember the baby's name. I've never met them. Alex and her husband sent us the picture and we forwarded it on. I'm sure other people that Alex sent the picture to also forwarded it. It is most definitely real. I just found the original image on my computer and I started looking for it online. We thought it was great when the picture made its way back to us with a bunch of other email pictures that get sent around.
Posted by Fred P  on  Fri May 13, 2005  at  05:57 PM
Fred,

This photo is as "fake" as they come... and if your wife is lying to you about her friends then maybe you should wonder about what else she might be fibbing about! If not, then your wifes' friend is one who spinning the yarn and the two of you are just a little gullible. Ask any medical professional, this isn't possible without some SERIOUS problems.

Just a thought...
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Fri May 13, 2005  at  06:52 PM
Sorry, but, you're wrong.
Posted by Fred P  on  Fri May 13, 2005  at  07:47 PM
Some people(Mark-N-Jen) who think they know something don't know shizit! Here's my wife's email to the mother in the "Footprint" photo.

From: Ca*** <********@********.net>
To: Alex K*** <*******@********.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 02:35:37 -0500
Subject: Fwd: Alex and the foot
Hi Ka, Check out this email I received from Fred yesterday. After looking at pictures on your family website we noticed the same picture of the foot started showing up in bulk emails along with other amazing photos. I think you should clear this up... It truly is an amazing photo... Looks
painful though!
Hoping all is well with all of Y'all~
Ca***!

You can bet I will post the proof positive here shortly. We'll see who's gullible and who doesn't know WTF they're talking about!

The Footprint is real.
Posted by Fred P  on  Sun May 15, 2005  at  02:53 AM
As promised, here's the link to the family web site with "The Foot" photo.
http://www.harvison.com/roger/boys/boysindex.htm

The footprint is one of the twins' foot.

As I said, the footprint is real. So much for being gullible.
Posted by Fred P  on  Wed May 18, 2005  at  02:00 AM
Fred P, posting a link to a website which contains this photo doesn't prove anything. I have yet to see a medical profesional (and I have asked many) who believes this photo is even remotely possible. As a mother of four I feel certain it's a well-done fake.
Posted by zenobia13  on  Wed Jun 22, 2005  at  11:25 AM
If it's real... my comments are "cool!" and "ouch!"

If it's not... gotta love cgi.

Either way, it's a sweet photo.
Posted by Aubrey G  on  Thu Aug 11, 2005  at  09:02 AM
I think It's real, because I got an email about it, and there was this legal thing at the top....here it is:
Megan Marek
TFL Case Manager

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please
do not distribute it. Please notify the sender by phone at
936/756-1800 and destroy the original document. THANK YOU


There you have it!
Posted by tabi  on  Sun Oct 09, 2005  at  10:43 AM
Tabi: Confidentiality notices can be made up. After giving this notice a good look I say this notice and the pic are both fake.
Posted by Dany  in  Waco, Texas  on  Sun Oct 09, 2005  at  11:19 AM
As if!! Totally fake. I have a daughter and we could never tell what was poking out when i was pregnant. cute pic tho
Posted by sophia  on  Wed Nov 30, 2005  at  04:05 PM
It's probably real. As someone who had twins, my son's foot in utero would stick out and I would play with his toes.
I have also been a photoshopper for 5 years and have instructed in it. It's great for faking things, but as a photographer, certain shadows and their natural blend into skin cannot be faked and not be obvious.
Posted by anon  on  Thu Apr 06, 2006  at  02:36 PM
I am a mother of two and an aunt of six!...and i believe this is REAL! My first nephew, Cole, I saw his footprint has plain as day, just like this picture. I swear! It was SO weird to me, that i still remember and get freaked out! I had my own son two years later and then another son two years after that...and i NEVER once saw anything like that pushing out of my stomach. I never saw any other of her babies foot like i did his. Take it like you want it, it could be a fake, BUT i saw my nephews foot!(and babies to have long skinny feet) Some women are so skinny and some placentas attach to the back as to leave room in the front of the belly.
Children are blessing from the LORD! We are fearfully and wonderfully made!
Posted by Krista  on  Tue Apr 25, 2006  at  05:17 PM
You wouldn't believe the shock when i looked under a search and came across this poll.I will tell you that the photo of the baby's foot is very real, how do i know this the pregnant women is my daughter, eight months pregnant, her baby was at the time breech and positioned in such a way that when my daughter was sitting the baby would be sittin exactly as she was. My daughter was sitting at her computer desk and was playing with her newly purchased digital camera when she uncovered her belly and snapped a picture. You should of seen the shock on both of our faces when we reviewed the picture. That foot belongs to my first grandchild, since born and she still spreads her toes the same way....
Posted by anglee davis  on  Thu Apr 27, 2006  at  02:01 AM
anglee, can you provide any proof to back up your claim? Other pictures, etc? Or do you still have a hi-res version of the orginal image? I'd be very interested in seeing whatever you have. You can email me directly.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Thu Apr 27, 2006  at  09:19 AM
Anglee, yours in not the first "this is my (daughter's/friend's/sister's) belly" claim that I have come across in researching this so-called photograph. I hope that you will provide Alex with the solid evidence needed to verify what you say. For the time being, this mother of four and former midwifery student is saying "no way". I believe it is a magnificent bit of allegorical ARTwork that was never intended to deceive.
Posted by Barbara  on  Thu Apr 27, 2006  at  10:40 AM
If you look up "gullible" in the dictionary, there would be a picture of those who believe the photo-shopped pic of the fetal foot is real. I have had four kids. I can discern what is a foot, elbow, or bottom, but it won't show up that distinct from the outside due to the layers of muscle and fat - even a painfully thing person has SOME fat! And the idiot with the website link to harvison.com or whatever - anyone can link a url to that picture. You have twins - using a fake picture to brag is not necessary. You've birthed two humans at once and lived to tell - accept your glory and leave it at that. Don't lie. As far as the confidentiality notice someone mentioned as proof - anyone who emails from a company email address will have that disclaimer, you moron. I could email you and tell you that Jimmy Hoffa ran off to Neverland with the Easter Bunny in tow, and if I sent it from work, it would have a disclaimer like that. Doesn't make it true, though, right? Wait - I have to remember who I am talking to. I shouldn't start rumors about Hoffa. People like you might believe them.
Posted by Anna  on  Tue Jun 06, 2006  at  10:54 AM
OH MY GOD, THAT IS DEFINITELY REAL. LET ME TELL YOU HOW I KNOW. I HAVE 4 KIDS. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A VERY THIN WOMAN. MY STOMACH HAS ALWAYS BEEN THINLY STRETCHED. I WOULD LAY ON MY BACK AND I COULD SEE AND FEEL ALL KINDS OF MOVEMENTS AND BODY PARTS. MY STOMACH WOULD BE IN ALL KINDS OF WEIRD SHAPES. MY DOCTOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN AMAZED AT HOW YOU CAN EASILY SEE THE HEEL OF THE FOOT OR THE ELBOW, OR WHEN I LAY DOWN FOR MY ULTRASOUND, ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS WOULD ALWAYS KIND OF GET TO ONE SIDE AND SOMETHING WOULD STICK OUT FAR AND WHEN HE DID THE ULTRASOUND HE WOULD SEE THAT ITS HER BUTT. ANYTIME I WANTED TO SEE AND FEEL MY BABY MOVING, I WOULD GO LIE DOWN. SOMETIMES IT LOOKS AT THOUGH AN UNKNOWN BEING WAS MOVING AROUND IN MY BODY. ANYTHING THAT HAS A POINT ON IT WOULD DEFINITELY SHOW IF I LAY ON MY BACK. EVEN THE KNUCKLES FROM THEIR HANDS OR THE TIP OF THE TOES; YOU CAN SEE AND FEEL IT ALL. SO TO THE WOMAN OR ANYONE ELSE THAT IS GETTING UPSET AND SAYING THAT ITS A LIE AND THAT WE WHO BELIEVE THIS IS REAL ARE GULIBLE, OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T KNOW BETTER. DO YOU SEE HOW YOU CAN END UP LOOKING LIKE A FOOL WHEN YOU SPEAK SO SURELY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO. IF YOU PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT, THEN JUST SAY THAT. THE WOMAN IN THE PICTURE STOMACH LOOKS THICKER THAN MINE AND THE VISIONS OF MY BABY'S BODY PARTS WERE MUCH MORE VISIBLE. LESSON BE LEARNED; IF THERE ARE ANY SITUATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED FOR YOURSELF, PLEASE DO RESEARCH BEFORE NOT ONLY STATING YOUR OPINION, BUT ALSO BEFORE YOU CRITISIZE OTHERS THAT OBVIOUSLY KNEW BETTER THAN YOU. THOSE ARE NOT BUMPS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FOOT; THERE IS THE HEEL AT THE BOTTOM AND THOSE "BUMPS" YOU SEE IS THE LITTLE BONE THAT STICKS OUT IF YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE RAISE YOUR BIG TOE. I AM TOO FAMILIAR WITH WHAT A BABY'S FOOT LOOKS LIKE. I HAVE 2 BOYS 9 AND 7 AND 2 GIRLS 5 AND 12 MONTHS. IF I HAD A PICTURE I WOULD SHOW, BUT I WAS ALWAYS ASHAMED OF MY STOMACH BECAUSE OF ALL THE STRETCH MARKS SO I NEVER TOOK PICTURES OF JUST MY STOMACH.
Posted by Emon  on  Tue Jun 06, 2006  at  01:18 PM
After reading more of the responses, i just wanted to add, my water did not break early, my babies were still in the placenta, I did not have them early, i was not high-risk, no pregnancy complications or anything that you all are assuming about the mother in the picture. My babies were 9lb 5oz, 7lb 9oz, 8lb 6oz and 9lb 2ozs. 3 were over due and one came a week before his due date but was still pretty much on time.
Posted by EMON  on  Tue Jun 06, 2006  at  01:26 PM
On more post: The sad thing about this whole situation/debate is that alot of the comments throughout the past 2 years have come from doctors. It's sad because these are the people that we depend on for medical care and when you see/hear doctors speaking as if they know because they have a "degree" we tend to believe it. It's a good thing my personal experience tells me that these "assumptions" are not true. How can doctors not even have a clue that this is possible and even give the "alleged" reasons of why this can't be possible. But I guess doctors are just people, and like the rest of us, they keep on learning. I hope any and all that did not believe, know better now. If I have a fifth child, I will definitely video-tape the movements of my baby.
Posted by EMON  on  Tue Jun 06, 2006  at  02:57 PM
You know to me it is the creativity and the woman's experience that makes this picture real to me...

It does not matter how it came about but rather what the mother acctually feels when going through this amazing time in her and significent other's life...
Posted by Linda  on  Mon Apr 23, 2007  at  10:38 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.