As of my writing of this OP, Snopes considers this ‘undetermined’. My question is whether or not this even medically possible. My first thought was that the uterus wall would prevent this level of “detail” on the imprint from being possible, but I really have no idea how thick the uterus wall is.
Its a fake.
Look at that vertical seam down the center…probably a latex appliance.
Enola Straight I agree that it’s a fake. But, that line down the center of the stomach isn’t a seam. It’s a common feature of pregnant bellies.
IANAMD, but OTTOMH that foot would have to go through several layers of skin, the transversus muscle layer, and the perisomething or other which eludes me at the moment (This is based on playing the videogame Life And Death and performing virtual appendectomies) plus the uterus and placenta. The detail is too great. Heck, you can’t get that level of detail pressing against the inside of your cheeks.
Not necessarily. Many pregnant women exhibit the ‘seam’ you are looking at. Do a google image search on “pregnant”, and you will see dozens of them. I would link to my search here, but it is probably unsafe for work.
When my sister carried triplets, her stomach was stretched so thin we often saw lumps and bumps that we could feel were a foot or fist or baby booty, but we never saw detail anywhere near that level. I think it’s a fake.
Peritoneum. That’s the word I couldn’t remember.
Fake.
The impression here is of something directly below a thin layer of skin and
fetuses simply aren’t that close to the surface. They can’t afford to be that exposed.
And besides all the above, an infant’s foot doesn’t have a well defined arch, heel, and ball of the foot like the imprint in the picture.
Also, babies are all curled up in the fetal position (duh!), and their legs are crossed with their feet usually turned inward. They move around a good bit, but I can’t imagine a baby being able to stretch out and press the bottom of its foot completely flat like that.
While I strongly agree that this could not be an actual impression of a fetal foot, this does not mean necessarily that the photo has been doctored. There could be some swellings or blemishes on the mother’s stomach that just coincidentally seem to form a footprint.
IANA Photoshop exert, and my videocard is rather outdated. However, my guess is the image was created using an actual pregnant woman, the foot of a high quality doll, some liquid latex, glue and make up. It would be simple to take an impression of that area of the woman’s abdomen and use it to make a latex appliance with the proper texture. Apply make up to the skin and latex so they match. Position the foot behind the latex and glue the latex on. Done properly, this produces an authentic seeming image with no signs of computer alteration.
[hijack]
I loved that game. I was pretty bad at it, though. I probably killed 70+ patients in the OR before I had my first successful appendectomy. But then, I was only around 10 or so at the time.
Easy E
The peritoneum is my nemesis. I can never find the scissor cut to start the incision with the scalpel.
My mother told me that she could see my toes in a neat little row ‘like kernels of corn’ pressed into her abdomen while she was pregnant with me, so presumably she could get at least that level of detail. But I’d agree that the photo is faked - babies have pretty flat (or slightly rounded) bottoms-of-feet. They don’t have the same defined two balls at the front of the foot like an older child or an adult would have, as the picture shows.
That’s called a linea nigra… my wife, in her 36th week, has one.
Don’t you think Snopes is on the ball enough to consider something that obvious? I’d be careful about jumpin’ to such adamant “it’s a fake” conclusions when Snopes has already considered a claim and is undecided.
And I’m skeptical, too, about the detail show, but I’d be equally reticent about drawing a definitive conclusion based on medical knowledge you learned from a video game of all places. :rolleyes:
If you attend a prenatal class, one of the things they teach is all of the different positions babies present themselves in… it’s certainly possible that the foot can press against the abdominal wall like that.
As has already been pointed out, the photo itself may not be “faked,” that is, altered. However, it certainly does not show what it purports to show, that is the impression of a detailed a fetal foot on a pregnant woman’s abdomen.
Not everyone’s opinion in this thread is based on that. Mine is based on teaching Human Anatomy at the university level.
Whether or not it is, it’s certainly not possible for a fetal foot to make that kind of detailed impression through multiple layers of tissue, muscle, and skin.
I’m assuming Snopes simply wants a stronger defense of their judgement before declaring it fake. They found no evidence of digital alteration (otherwise they would have declared the photo fake and explained how they detected the alteration). They still want to interview surgeons, Obstetricians/gynecologists, professional special effects and make up artists etc so they can cite expert opinions on exactly why the photo is a fake.
Yeah, I mean it’s not like I ever checked the anatomy in the game against a copy of Gray’s Anatomy, or asked a doctor or biologist if it was accurate.
Except that I did. Playing Life And Death so many times simply drilled the knowledge into memory.
I never doubted that the foot could be pressed against the abdominal wall in that position. I dounted that you could see that amount of detail. I still doubt very much that you could.