Matt
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 | 12:38 PM
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. |
scarlete
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 | 02:30 PM
I am sad there is no link.. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 | 02:49 PM
Here's the photo, but I also have a thread going about this on the main site:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/fetal_footprint/
"http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/EE/images/uploads/ffootprint.jpg" |
scarlete
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 | 02:55 PM
Thank you, Alex. (: I'm going to go check it out. |
scarlete
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 | 03:02 PM
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
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 | 04:31 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 | 04:32 PM
Also, the toes are super long-baby's toes are short, short, short. |
cheryl
|
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 | 10:20 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 | 06:07 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.
:ohh: |
Cheryl
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 07:30 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 | 08:02 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.
:roll: |
Cheryl
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 08:37 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 | 09:21 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 |
Cheryl
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 | 09:49 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... |
Tammy
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 02:11 PM
I have found a site at:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2005/03/little-foot.html
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
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 | 06:24 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 | 07:00 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 | 01:18 PM
Can someone else please explain to Noira why we don't believe her? |
Cheryl
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 | 01:43 PM
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. |
Kwanna
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 | 06:44 PM
Totally agree w/ Cheryl |
LJ
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 | 07:18 PM
I think this calls for another thread, because it's not on topic.
If we don't have a level of verifiable facts, can we just leave it at "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt?" Using the definition at The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm , "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."
If you need to start a new thread, don't tell me about it, because "Bambi" is not a real deer to me -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
😖 |
Melissa
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 05:06 PM
Let me just say that I have been pregnant and there is NO WAY this is a real picture! It is cute though. |
LJ
|
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 | 07:11 PM
Melissa, I would call you a reliable resource. I agree. It is a cute picture and it was probably created -- in more ways than one -- by a very proud and talented father-to-be. |
LD
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 11:16 AM
This subject is dead yes? But I just got the picture in my email! 😊
I agree with Cheryl and Melissa . . . highly unlikely, but very cute.
Has to be a hoax because . . .
1. In order to have that kind of definition through the skin, the kid would have to be pushing really hard (not enough strength), and the belly would have quite a little mountain on the side of it, this belly looks pretty "flat" comparatively speaking.
2. I've been around plenty of newborns, and have three of my own . . . I've never seen such a foot on a newborn. My very active 29-month-old, doesn't have that much muscle definition in her foot. I'd said it is a minimum a 4-5 year old foot. |
sherry
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 | 08:14 PM
i think this could be really a baby foot. you would be amazed of what a baby can do. when they ar in the mother womb. |
Barb Marshall
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 | 09:31 PM
wow..i cant believe such controversy over a simple picture. YES it is a fake. Noira, hope u enjoy feeding the frenzy. or you are a sick woman. it was worth a great laugh. its a wonderful picture to remind us of the miracle of birth. nothing more than that.. carpe diem. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 | 09:52 PM
I have to say that I don't even think it reminds us of the miracle of birth...
Giving birth is impressive enough without having to resort to fake pictures to try and make it more interesting... |
LJ
|
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 | 01:12 AM
Gawd, let's beat this to death. It's a manipulated image. What the artist had in mind was to have it discussed. I think he/she has gotten more than the allotted 15 minutes of fame. Let's stop here and go on to significant things like "Do you know Avogadro's number?" If you don't, look it up, and learn something useful. |
Shauna, Vanessa, and Helena!
|
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 | 08:59 AM
Who would actually photoshop a picture of a baby's foot on a womens pregnant stomach. Miracles happen everyday. The size of the baby's foot could be possible and some babys can be big. We think it is a beautiful picture and it's a miracle that the mother got to experience this because its not something that happens everyday to just anybody. |
wow who cares
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 02:08 AM
wow im actually laughing hard at al of u right now. the only reason why i came across this stupi site is for an assignment. seriously, who cares? its just a picture.i think u should all go and get lives now. thanku |
rob
|
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 | 12:01 AM
it's 6.022 x 10^23 😛 |
LJ
|
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 | 12:50 AM
Nice to meet you, Rob. Your answer is the first pertinent one I received. Did you know the number, or just know where to look it up?
It was a bumper sticker I saw. It bugged me for the hour it took to drive home, to get to my reference books. I knew what it was related to, but not the actual number.
LJ |
Tessa Michna
|
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 | 09:34 AM
I had a baby at 24 weeks and the medical records statethat her foot was 4 cm. |
hugh
|
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 | 08:01 PM
When my wife was pregnant. I could see her belly moveing around. For a split second... I saw a little hand. |
Marisa
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 | 01:35 PM
who cares if it's real of fake, it's the meaning of the picture. i for one love it, real or not! |
denae
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 | 03:52 PM
the reason i came upon this site is cos a girl in my huggies chatroom, who is pregnant with quads has just claimed this is her belly lol i had to laugh cos i knew it wasnt!
also tessa, my sons foot was around 4cms at 24weeks. the feet stop growing after 21 weeks. |
Erika
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 | 01:31 AM
actually it is real. just to let you guys know. when you're really far along, you can see the baby move inside of the womb. try looking at videos on youtube.com for babies in the womb. it's great proof. and even my own mother said that it happened to her. |
AMBER
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 | 05:50 AM
i think this is one of the koolest things i have ever seen! |
MIKE C
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 | 09:55 PM
I know I'm really late to the dance here but my wife and I were sitting around tonight telling our girls about how they used to push so hard we could see and count their toes. Absolutely true. So I went to the Net looking for an image and here I am.
Now the image here shows much more detail than we ever noticed, but I can tell you it is conceivable that the image might be real.
My wife says it was uncomfortable but not painful. |
jessica
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 | 09:07 PM
I believe this picture because when your far along in pregnancy, you lose a lot of amniotic fluid and the baby has little space to move; therefore this is possible. When I was pregnant 6 months ago, my baby was 10 pounds and I could see his toes and feet all the time. His feet were this size when he was born. It's funny how people are so naive!!! Just because it didn't happen to them doesn't mean it's not real. I've seen it happen. P.S babies are stronger then you think. They can definitely push this hard and they can make this impression depending how they're lying in the womb. |
Ronna18
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 | 03:10 PM
Hello, my name is Ronna. I am the mother of this awesome little footprint. My husband took this photo of me when I was eight or nine months along. The baby is my daughter, Makenna and she was born on July 21st, 2001. She was getting a bit restless and started to stretch. I told my husband to grab the camera and see if he could snap a shot or two and this is what we caught. I can guarantee that this photo has not been altered in any way. The photo was taken with a Sony Machiva, the one with a floppy disk, so I do not have a high res image or negative to get it printed in high quality. I sent this photo to several of my friends and family as I though it was so cute. Imagine how surprised I was when a friend pointed this out to me then I realized it was all over the internet! I was 30 when I had her and her foot was maybe a little under two inches at the time of the photo. She was born on time and weighed in at 8lbs 4oz. I can't remember if she was 21 1/2" or if that was my son, but I think that was her length. I welcome anyone who thinks this was not real because I was there and I was feeling every kick! I even have the light mole bellow my belly button to prove it. Yes, God does show us true miracles every day we just need to open our eyes to see them. |
KKilpatrick
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 | 07:24 AM
I saw this picture on a photo contest I just entered. Check it out . Seems a little strange that someone would enter this contest for a 200 dollar prize if they could get a lot more on oprah.http://www.competico.com/photo/baby-foot |
kjsnfrnch
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 | 03:31 PM
ronna, if indeed the photo is real, would you please contact me, i would like to talk with you about the photo for a celebration of life project.
please contact me.
thanks!
jason |
hill
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 | 04:53 PM
thats creepy but cool |
Mel
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 | 08:44 PM
LJ that's funny because there is a similar picture on my mid wife's wall and it was taken at the hospital. |
Pam
|
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 | 06:36 PM
This pic is for real thats my Niece Brandy and my Great niece Jazzmins foot we have the negitive..and it just prove wierd thing happen all the time..and that is whaat Jazzie foot looks like.. |
Cary m
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 | 10:50 PM
Cool women |
Lee
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 | 02:33 PM
LJ is partially right when s/he says the baby's foot would have to have torn through the uterus for this image to have been possible. Really, the baby's foot would have had to have torn through the uterus, PLUS the abdominal fascia, the rectus abdominus muscles, and perhaps an inch of fat, before coming to press directly on the underside of the skin (which is what would yield a photo that clearly defined). Tammy got it right when she alluded to the "inches of tissue" between the baby's foot and the skin. If you want a rough approximation of what this might look like in real life, press a babie's foot )or other object) firmly against a one-or-two-inch thick piece of steak and see what kind of detail and definition you get to see on the other side.
But, as others have suggested, albeit a hoax it's VERY well done. |
lori kleist
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 | 07:27 AM
Tammy is incorrect...when I was around 8 months pregnant with my second child a similiar thing happened to me when she kicked and left it there for a few moments in a stratching position. I was amazed!I could see her toe impressions. Don't know if this pic is real or not but its not like some far fetched, unbelievable picture...instead it simply depicts where we all have come from and the limited space in our mothers womb. I love it!!! Beautiful baby and mommy picture! |
Milly
|
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 | 02:31 PM
I thought photos like this were a hoax too until my son kicked me about a week before he was born and for a few minutes my husband and I got a very good view of his foot. Never had it happen with my daughter ... but it can and does happen, and it's a wonderful feeling if you're lucky enough to see it.
As for the lady who's gyn said it can't ... I'd look to change love she clearly doesn't have a clue! |
Sami
|
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 | 01:39 PM
Im sure it is a hoax...pretty amazing looking though! A couple things:
~Tear your uterus? really? LMAO
~You can certainly feel that..but to see so clearly..NOT!
~Foot size shouldn't matter..my kids had big feet when born, long toes and all!
~and Noira..what great timing for your baby to stretch (when a camera was ready to click) |
Ashley
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 | 12:32 AM
I think this could be possible but then again, how would you be able to capture this picture without the babys foot moving.
😊 |
Lara
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 | 08:37 PM
Yes, having just had a baby I believe this is possible. But I would say perhaps that the mother was in labor & her waters had broken, hence seeing so much detail! Some women one second pregnancy or more go about normal day until contractions are real close, as woman who posted this stated taking this photo made her late for occasion she was attending!! Someone asked wot the lumps on foot are - toes & ball of foot. My babies feet were very long & bony when he was born. |
brklynroc
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 | 03:47 PM
Technology has the ability; But God is so much bigger than all things and possibilities you have mentioned!! With that being said if technology can, can you image what God could do..I'm just saying..Yes this can be real |
mel
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 | 10:06 AM
I am currently 8 months along and i have to take lovenox shots in my stomache due to blood clotting disorders. There is no way this is real. I was promised by 3 doctors that the needle would not hurt the baby..the baby is to far back to have the needle touch him. If the baby could make that imprint I could stick him and hurt him! |
Tony
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 | 08:57 PM
Hi, this is to Ronna. I too would love to talk to you about your photo of Makkena's footprint. I ran across your photo this evening on someone else's site while looking researching my clients' material for a website I'm working on -- and through a Google search wound up here. I thought your photo was fabulous. I wanted to speak with you about your permission in my possible use of it in a website for pre and perinatal education. I would also (forgive me) like to somehow validate that it is in fact authentic. You're likely very weary of everyone's commentary and opinions at this point. Sorry.
Thank you : )
Tony
http://www.tonybeach.com |
Tony
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 | 09:25 PM
Now I'm a bit baffled with Ronna's comment left saying she's the mom -- sharing all of the details of the event, while a few entries below is Pam (a little over a year later's entry) claiming:
"This pic is for real thats my Niece Brandy and my Great niece Jazzmins foot we have the negitive..and it just prove wierd thing happen all the time..and that is whaat Jazzie foot looks like.."
That entry doesn't add up for me. Wow -- lot of controversy and speculation here.
Ronna states that it was taken without a neg, as the image was captured electronically and not via film. So hmmm. |
