Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy

[Bill]

RN:

Meldrum has far more knowledge and expertise in locomotion and that anatomical aspect then I do, so I don't dispute his conclusions. But I haven't verified it either from my one study. My knowledge is far more in regard to the motion of furcloth materials.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

I guess I don't understand what the cloth has to do with it. Would'nt the foot bending have to do with the real foot inside?

[Bill]

RN:

If you are talking about a suit foot with a real human foot inside, assuming the suit foot is a standard slip latex cast, and close to the size of the human foot inside, the suit foot will tend to bend at the ball of the foot as the real foot inside does, while walking.

I thought you were referencing the calf area because of your diagram. Furcloth would have covered that, if a suit.

So a fake foot worn on a real foot may generally bend in the same place as the real foot, when the person wearing the suit is walking.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Ok....so if Patty's foot bends at the midtarsus, then that is the mime's foot flexing at the midfoot....which is anatomiclly impossible.

So would there be a way to make the suits foot bend at a beifferent spot than the mime's?

[Bill]

RN:

Okay, I see what you mean (it's been a hectic day with other business on my mind)

What I ment is that a human foot wearing a fake foot, the fake foot would tend to bend the same way the real human foot does.

The mid-tarsis break you referenced appears to bend much further back on the foot, and a human's feet wearing fake feet would not bend there.

I suppose some kind of mechanical rig could be built into a fake foot to try and simulate a break there, but offhand, i can't imagine what that design would be.

Sorry for any confusion.

So getting back to your original question, I don't agree or disagree with meldrum on the break, because I haven't studied the feet in detail. But a fake foot worn by a human would not likely bend there, as far as i can tell. Something I should look into more.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Yeah, I have tried to imagine why the foot would bend so far back as is seen on the film. If the fake feet were 14.5" then they would appear to be bending that far back. But then how would the toes flex and push into the ground.

Giganto has posted this felx in motion.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry454480

[wolftrax]

Keep in mind that the top of the foot is not visible during the frames where the break is said to take place. This indicates that the ground is obscuring the foot when it is placed on the ground, therefore we cannot say for certain there is a midtarsal break occuring on film.

[Guest Remember November]

Patty's right foot is just about level with her left foot. There is no way her 14.5'' foot is bending at the ball, only the heel is sticking up.

And if you agree that the film subject made the footprints, the prints show a midtarsal ridge.

[wolftrax]

See in frame 1, how you cannot see the top of Patty's left foot. Now look at the right foot in frame 3, it is at this point when the foot is in full contact with the ground that you cannot see the top of the foot.

We have one track that explicitly shows what has been termed a midtarsal break. Before that, it was stated that was caused by a stick being under the track. One thing to note, however, is that the "Break" is in the position where a human's arch would be if wearing a fake foot.

[Guest Remember November]

We have one track that explicitly shows what has been termed a midtarsal break. Before that, it was stated that was caused by a stick being under the track. One thing to note, however, is that the "Break" is in the position where a human's arch would be if wearing a fake foot.

How is that where the arch would be?

The toes flex in the film, so we know (if the film subject left the prints ) where a human arch should be...not that far back from the toes.

[wolftrax]

We see what could be toe flexion, or could also be rubber toes flopping around. I'd have to look at the frames before they were enhanced to make sure it isn't some sort of background noise that was enhanced before making any further comments on it.

The cast is 14 1/2", if you ever get a chance to see it in person hold it up to your feet. Mine is a size 11 and my arch matches up to the same spot as in the cast, with my foot being in the main body of the foot, while the toes would hang loose.

You would also see the geometric shape to what is called the midtarsal break, like a tube or stick was underneath the substrate, and indeed this was what it was considered to be.

Edited March 26, 2008 by wolftrax

[Guest Remember November]

We see what could be toe flexion, or could also be rubber toes flopping around. I'd have to look at the frames before they were enhanced to make sure it isn't some sort of background noise that was enhanced before making any further comments on it.

The cast is 14 1/2", if you ever get a chance to see it in person hold it up to your feet. Mine is a size 11 and my arch matches up to the same spot as in the cast, with my foot being in the main body of the foot, while the toes would hang loose.

You would also see the geometric shape to what is called the midtarsal break, like a tube or stick was underneath the substrate, and indeed this was what it was considered to be.

I wear a size 15, it would be interesting to see where my toes reach.

I thought the cast with the midtarsl ridge is the same print in the laverty photo. That is clearly not a stick.

[wolftrax]

It may be, it may not be, but it was stated that there was a stick under the substrate that caused that bump, and there is a branch sticking up to the side.

Either way, the film isn't clearly showing a midtarsal break, and what we can observe here isn't anatomically impossible.

[Guest]

It may be, it may not be, but it was stated that there was a stick under the substrate that caused that bump, and there is a branch sticking up to the side.

Either way, the film isn't clearly showing a midtarsal break, and what we can observe here isn't anatomically impossible.

I think you're being a bit dismissive here. Who exactly stated a stick created the bump, and how would they know? You think a stick created this?

Unless you ascribe to the tracks being created separately, then flopping rubber toes don't create deep impressions in the substrate. Flexible AND rigid? I dunno.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Gigantofootecus

[Bill]

Gigantofooticus:

Do you know where and when that cast pictured was made? Any other circumstance info.

I'd never seen this view before and it's fascinating.

Bill