New foot reconstruction, my interpretation of the evidence Options

[Jim Zenor]

Since this Site seems to be the Bigfoot Blog of Record, I wanted to post this here. My intention is to provide a general alternate foot structure which I believe to be a more appropriate fit of the best available evidence. My photos will follow in subsequent posts. My intention isn’t really to show what Bigfoot foot structure is necessarily, but to introduce my serious doubts which I have of the reconstructions which I have seen to date. A couple months ago, I criticized Dr. Meldrum’s reconstruction (as much as I respect him) and I prepared these reconstructions as a more detailed explanation of where I differ on the subject. I apologize for my wordiness but it is difficult to be brief without getting grilled for being incomplete. It is my intention to use common language whenever possible and not get too technical.

First my Limitations: I am a geologist with a BS degree in geological engineering and have a strong background in biology from a lifelong interest. I very recently learned how to use Microsoft Image Pro to reconstruct the bones. The bones were reconstructed mostly by taking photos of human bones which are shown and manipulating them by stretching, where feasible, and copying bones to the where I had previously drawn them. Since I am a novice in this technique, there will be flaws in my reconstruction.

Around 35 years ago, I read Abominable Snowmen, Legend Come to Life (if memory serves) by Ivan Sanderson, a zoologist (I’m pretty sure he earned a doctorate in the subject). In the book, Sanderson described what he thought Sasquatch feet should look like. Sanderson thought that even though their foot may be large compared to ours, it is really a relatively short foot, with short bones. He thought Sasquatch would have a very steep forefoot (from the toes to the ankle). The reason for this is because he realized a very large hominoid would require proportionately large ankle bones.

Although no known Sasquatch foot bone has been found, there are clues which we can use to reconstruct the foot bones. These clues in the upcoming photos include footprints which reveal were the foot bends, i.e. the joints. Sasquatch have very flexible feet and have joints where human feet are tied up in arches. In addition, Sasquatch feet have a feature generally called a double ball. The double ball is located immediately behind the big toe. We all have a “pad” behind the big toe that protects the joint (where your big toe connects to the foot). As you walk, your big toe bends and additional stress is placed on this point. The ends of bones at joints are generally thicker because they are at a high stress area. To avoid injury, a pad developed which helps redistribute the weight at this point and avoid injury to the joint. In Sasquatch, there are two pads one behind the other, and are practically touching. To me this indicates a very short bone here, with joints on both ends. The Patterson film has frames which show a silhouette of her ankle, which I have used in the preparation of the cross section of the Sasquatch foot. For the top down view, I used a footprint with a very visible double ball.

There is a scientific principle (backed both by engineering and biological principles) which basically says that a large animal will have proportionately larger bones. As an animal evolves larger, its muscles (increasing in 2 dimensions) are less able to move its bulk (which increases in 3 dimensions) with the same degree of athleticism (assuming equal proportions). An ant can zip around and carry things many times heavier than itself, yet its muscles are far less efficient than ours (as is its respiratory system). It is this principle that explains why an ant appears so strong. Science fiction movies which have giant spiders or ants are simply not realistic. Giant animals require significant modifications to support their great bulk. Lever lengths also are modified.

Krantz, among others, seemed to understand this point when he predicted the lever length of the heel bone needed for a large hominoid. He realized the lever length needed to be longer and he predicted a protruding heel bone. What Dr. Krantz did not do, in my opinion, is accurately account for the necessity to increase bone strength also. He reconstructed Sasquatch foot bones by moving the ankle forward and leaving most of the bones in the same proportion and thickness as humans despite the fact that Sasquatch are probably at least 5 times a massive as humans, and based on most reports, Sasquatch are equal if not vastly superior to humans in athleticism. For me, this was an irreconcilable contradiction. It did not match what Sanderson predicted and it did not jive with principles of basic engineering.

To help explain what I am talking about, let me use an example. Let’s say that an elk is three times as heavy as a Whitetail deer. The elk’s foot, which is evolved to deal with much greater stresses, will have foot bones that are larger proportionate to the whitetail’s. This is because the elk must move its larger 3 dimensional mass with muscles and bone that are increased in two dimensions. The elk still needs to run from wolves and other predators. The bone strength needs to maintain a margin of safety to avoid breaks and injuries which are likely as it jumps over obstacles, runs fast, and performs other activities. It must increase the proportionate strength of muscle and bone. To reduce the chance of breakage, the bone can be shortened, thus reducing the stress on it, thickened, thereby increasing the strength of the bone, or by a combination. In addition lever lengths may need to increased, but by increasing the lever lengths, some adjustments may need to be made in the structure such as thickening bone in other places. All these factors must be taken into account when dealing with Sasquatch foot reconstructions.

In my opinion, the previous reconstructions, for which I am aware, have failed to adequately account for this including the famous ones by Krantz and Meldrum. In addition, the foot reconstructions generally do not account for the double ball, which is characteristic of Bigfoot tracks. Dr. Krantz talks about it in his book, but seems to leave the presence of the double ball as a mystery, while acknowledging his reconstruction does not adequately account for it. I suppose it is possible he thought it might have been an artifact of the pad shape. I do not know. Anyway, I have prepared a reconstruction of Sasquatch foot structure which accounts for the double ball, is consistent with Dr. Sanderson’s prediction, fits the silhouette of the Patterson film, and is consistent with the engineering/biological principles regulating skeletal structure in animals of increasing size. The relatively short bone behind the double ball conveniently fits the enlarged ankle bones and a joint is in the correct position.

Both Meldrum and Krantz reconstructed the metatarsals too long in my opinion. The metatarsals are the long foot bones in front of the ankle connecting to the toes. A bone this long and skinny is very prone to breakage. The skinny bones leave a great deal of soft tissue in the foot that also seems hard to justify. If you feel your own foot, you can feel the bones very near to the surface. I have still allowed for a pretty hefty pad and a good deal of skin, hair, and soft tissue.

Because I know the standards on this site are high, I tried to do my homework. I understand that this is a specialized area of study and many without related doctorates may not care to reply. I hope that any criticism will be constructive and related to what I have said/theorized and not simply a critique on my lack of credentials which I fully acknowledge. I do not like seeing thing and believing they are not correct. If it turns out that I am the one who is not correct and someone can point out why, then I will have learned something. It may simply boil down to a difference of opinion and maybe only physical evidence will prove whose is correct.

[Jim Zenor]

This photo shows my reconstruction next to a "real" footprint which shows a clear double ball and a human foot to the right which I used to construct my foot

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 12:08 AM

Attached image(s)

 

[Jim Zenor]

This photo shows my cross section which has the silhoette of the Patty. The foot on the right is human and I used it in my reconstruction. Note how the ankle bone is enlarged

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 12:16 AM

Attached image(s)

 

[Jim Zenor]

This picture shows my foot reconstruction next to the one Dr. Krantz did on Cripplefoot. I think Dr. Krantz' was closer to what I believe to be appropriate.

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 12:39 AM

Attached image(s)

 

[Jim Zenor]

This one shows my reconstruction next to Dr. Meldrum's. I believe Dr. Meldrum's reconstruction is not nearly as strong as mine. I had a hard time finding appropriate feet structures. I need to research some more but I did find a giant sloth with a bigfoot like rear foot that had relatively large ankle bones. Dr. Meldrum's reconstruction did not use Patty's silhoette as a guide. Note his very long toe bones

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 12:45 AM

Attached image(s)

 

[Jim Zenor]

This one shows the foot reconstruction next to a cast which reveals the joint in the foot.

Attached image(s)

 

[Paul1968UK]

I showed my copy of Krantz's cripplefoot prints to a foot expert here a while ago - he had similar concerns regarding Krant's interpretation.

[ouachita]

Your arguments sound good so far. I'll have to take your word on a lot of it though.

[jon a. larsen]

Hmmmmm.............have you shown this to Jeff? He'd been very honest in discussing your ideas with you......

[damndirtyape]

I always thought the double ball was non-typical and just a callus on some individuals.

[Denlevi]

Just a few questions Jim, is the silhouette of patties foot you are using here a 90deg angle of her foot? Were you able to find this on the P&G film to support this theory? Also are you saying that the sasqy foot has even greater flexability than what we seem to think? In other words is there an additional flexion point besides the midtarsel joint to explain the double ball? We know in the human foot the tarsel/metetarsals are fixed and non flexible, this allows for more efficient locomotion over hard surfaces for example. Do you think the dimensions could not remain similar because of the added flexibilty in the sasqy foot minimizes the stress on the tarsel bone structure of the foot?


This is interesting and I found the work that Dr. Meldrum has done on the possible foot structure and locomotion fascinating and very informative as well.

[Jim Zenor]

Do you think the dimensions could not remain similar because of the added flexibilty in the sasqy foot minimizes the stress on the tarsel bone structure of the foot?

I think it is not so much the flexibility of the foot but the increasing size of the animal. For example the stresses on where the leg bone connects to the ankle has a surface (in two dimensions). If the animal evolves twice as tall and it remains in the same proportions, this joint will be increased in two dimensions and will have four times the area but the volume (weight) would increase in three dimensions and will be eight times as much. Therefore, it is not realistic in my opinion to leave the proportions of the bones or joint surfaces the same as humans. Their bones would need to be much stronger proportionate to their height relative to smaller humans.

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 08:27 PM

[Jim Zenor]

I always thought the double ball was non-typical and just a callus on some individuals.

A callus is a growth of dead skin which grows in places where there is unusual stress. It creates a kind of armor which helps take stresses. When you walk alot on your feet you will get calluses. These "calluses" grew there for a reason and for me the best possible reason is the presence of joints beneath them. I can think of no other reason why they would form like this. In nature, if it isn't needed it genearlly doesn't exist. The presence of the double b*lls in some footprints can be easily accounted for by my reconstruction. The lack of double b*lls in some foot prints can also be easily accounted for by lack of detail in the particular print, or by the development of oversized pads or "calluses" in the individual masking the double ball. I suppose it is possible for a pad to form on both sides of the one joint but the problem with this is that it still leaves the joint unprotected by some objects. The pad developes to reduce the chance of injury on the joint or whatever portion of the foot is subject to great stress. I will provide numerous photos showing the double ball. The double ball can be seen on a certain frame of the Patterson Film but it is difficult to see and I may not be able to reproduce it.

[damndirtyape]

Help?

[damndirtyape]

too

[damndirtyape]

you

[damndirtyape]

from me

[MITCHELL!!]

In other words is there an additional flexion point besides the midtarsel joint to explain the double ball?

I have the same question. Your reconstuction shows, at least I think, a nonjointed portion of the tarsus where the distal ball of the foot is located. Dr. Meldrums reconstruction shows the distal tarsus to be slightly curved upwards, while yours are relatively straight. I guess I am still unclear as to the origin of the distal ball. I am however in agreement with your reconstruction, it only seems logical that a large creature would have a more robust osteology.

I am cautious though, perhaps gracile foot osteology may have some evolutionary advantage we are not aware of. I will leave with a quote I heard at a Vertebrate Paloeontology meeting a few years back.

Scientist 1: "This talk is going to be on Swimming Dynamics of Marine Reptiles."

Scientist in the audience: " What good is this? They're dead, we will never know how they truly swam"

Scientist 1: " Well, if we hazard to guess at how, we may just learn something. And that is the purpose of my talk, to attempt to learn something about our world."

Science is great. I learned something tonight.

[Jim Zenor]

I have the same question. Your reconstuction shows, at least I think, a nonjointed portion of the tarsus where the distal ball of the foot is located. Dr. Meldrums reconstruction shows the distal tarsus to be slightly curved upwards, while yours are relatively straight. I guess I am still unclear as to the origin of the distal ball. I am however in agreement with your reconstruction, it only seems logical that a large creature would have a more robust osteology.

I am cautious though, perhaps gracile foot osteology may have some evolutionary advantage we are not aware of. I will leave with a quote I heard at a Vertebrate Paloeontology meeting a few years back.

The answer to the first question is yes. I guess I neglected to mention that. I believe it is logical that there are several joints in their foot that are flexible. Having a degree of flexibility does help prevent certain injuries.

Regarding the advantages of gracile (slender) foot, the thing about bigfoot that really steers me away from this possibility is their environment which is typically steep and rough. I believe they would need a very robust skeleton to avoid injuries which would be common in this environment. There are plenty of stories of their physical prowess of running, stepping, climbing, getting hit by vehicles, and even falling which lead me to believe the robust option to be most likely. I am making a flexible foot stepping on something to demonstrate this.

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 10:00 PM

[Jim Zenor]

Thank you Damned Dirty Ape for the foot bones

[Jim Zenor]

This is a bent foot and shows some possible joint locations. Shes supposed to be standing on a rock. I'm a bit rushed so I think I will get a couple of other pictures showing the double b*lls and call it quits. And oh yeah, to answer an earlier question, the Patty silhouette on the original cross section was traced off a frame at approximately 90 degrees and I should have stated that it was an approximation, a best guess.

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 10:36 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Jim Zenor]

This photo shows Patterson holding the casts he made after filming Patty, and I pasted a portion of the film showing Pattys foot which clearly (IMHO) the double b*lls. Actually the arrows point right between the double b*lls. I flipped Patty's foot around for a mirror image of the cast.

This post has been edited by Jim Zenor: Oct 6 2004, 11:08 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Desertyeti]

Jim Z.'s reconstruction looks good, but to me, it looks like the distal two phalanges should be lengthened a bit.
In the print used as the basis of the osteological restoration, only the tips of the toes are touching the ground, so the rest of the toe is arched and elevated above the substrate's surface. The result is that even though the toes look short, they're actually a bit longer than would be expected...more like what's seen in the reconstructed Australopithecus afarensis foot.
The double ball is well preserved in Patty's footprints and seems to reflect a genuine morphological feature that is different from the single pad on a human foot. Looking at a gorilla's or a chimp's foot reveals a similar cleft "ball" where the phalanx 1 of digit 1 meets the distal metatarsal. This is related to flexibility of the big toe and possibly we a re seeing something similar in the Sasquatch foot.
Very cool stuff here.

[Denlevi]

Jim

If I understand you correctly then what you are theorizing is as follows.

First, The double ball noted in many castings and tracks indicate the presence of a flexion point at the Tarsel-Metetarsal (halux) joint directly behind the Phalanx/ Metetarsal (halux) joint wich is known predominatley as the " Ball" of the human foot as an example.
Dr.Meldrums assesments also indicate the presence of a flexible midtarsel joint in the sasquatch foot bone structure according to many castings and photos. I think we can all agree on this for the most part?

From the above theory, as we look closely at the photos and castings that indicate this double ball feature one can assume that they share a closer proximity of these two joints to each other than say, in a human. So this might indicate the halux to be much larger in diameter yet shorter in overall length thus giving it far greater strength and durability. (Please keep in mind im using the #1 halux and phalanges as an example, this would apply equally to the entire foot.) If this is the case then the #1 Cuneiform would also be much larger and substantially longer than human. As well as all the supporting bone structure in the Tarsel region.

So if indeed the above calculations are accurate and the Tarsel/Meta joint being a major flexion (power) point in this hominid during locomotion, and coupled with shorter and heavier halux/metatarsels then the location of the additional pad seems to be logical in relation to the "ball" of the foot, leaving the appearance of a double ball pattern. I would have to say this seems to be most logical with what we know.


Jim , I must say I would have to agree with this theory. It seems to make sense and the biomechanics seems to be logical. If anything it has us thinking and debating a subject any of us in the field should be well versed in anyway.


Since you have brought this subject up and I've had some time to study this more in depth, I also have a few observations to bring up, that I think can be addressed here as well.


With regards to the location of the ankle. It has been theorized that the ankle is set in a forward or more central position to accomodate a larger and heavier hominid. As most of us know this would naturally give the sasquatch much greater leverage in bipedal locomotion for one example due to a longer calcaneum
However I would think that a longer calcaneum is what we are dealing with here, and not a modified ankle position at all. Some may say its an argument of six of one, half a dozen of the other. The reasoning behind this is if we calculate the length of the calcaneum and its supporting bone structure (Talus, Cuboid and the cuneiforms, and being fixed and non flexible makes a complete efficient cantelever. Displacement of the talus or ankle would affect this cantalever in a negative manor, wich all the muscle strength in the world could not get the foot to extend properly. Nor would any real flexibility of the Tarsel region between the cuboid/calcaneum or navicular/cuneiforms.


Anyway to sum it up, a longer calcaneum, larger and heavier bone structure in the ankle and Talus. Larger , longer and heavier bones in the tarsel region (Cuboid,Cuneiforms) larger heavier yet shorter bones making up the Halux, metatarsels 2-5 with almost equal length phalanges would seem to equal a very powerfull and agile foot.


I cant help but remember a statement by Albert Ostman in his recollection of his alleged sasquatch abduction. He described the young male as having a superb ability to climb, better than a mountain goat. <quote> "The soles of his feet seemed to be padded like a dogs foot, and the big toe was longer than the rest and very strong. In mountian climbing all he needed was footing for his big toe. "

This post has been edited by Denlevi: Oct 7 2004, 07:35 PM

[Jim Zenor]

So this might indicate the halux to be much larger in diameter yet shorter in overall length thus giving it far greater strength and durability. (Please keep in mind im using the #1 halux and phalanges as an example, this would apply equally to the entire foot.) If this is the case then the #1 Cuneiform would also be much larger and substantially longer than human. As well as all the supporting bone structure in the Tarsel region.

Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting. Yes, in my reconstruction, I tried to enlarge all of the ankle bones including the cuneiforms. It was really surprisingly easy. I moved the talus to a more central location because it seems they do not rely as heavily on their big toe as humans but it was just a slight shift. After enlarging the talus calcaneous (the bone which the leg connects and the heel bone, the rest of the bones fit into place nicely right where they should to account for the double ball. In addition, I made the bones in the forefoot (metatarsals) shorter and thicker which does have the effect of resulting in a much stronger foot structure.

With regards to the location of the ankle. It has been theorized that the ankle is set in a forward or more central position to accomodate a larger and heavier hominid. As most of us know this would naturally give the sasquatch much greater leverage in bipedal locomotion for one example due to a longer calcaneum
However I would think that a longer calcaneum is what we are dealing with here, and not a modified ankle position at all. Some may say its an argument of six of one, half a dozen of the other. The reasoning behind this is if we calculate the length of the calcaneum and its supporting bone structure (Talus, Cuboid and the cuneiforms, and being fixed and non flexible makes a complete efficient cantelever. Displacement of the talus or ankle would affect this cantalever in a negative manor, wich all the muscle strength in the world could not get the foot to extend properly. Nor would any real flexibility of the Tarsel region between the cuboid/calcaneum or navicular/cuneiforms

Interesting observation. My intent was to move the talus forward for greater leverage and because the heel bone does protrude in Patty's frame. To get the achillies tendon in there, it would be pretty hard not to move it forward while keeping it large.

[Jim Zenor]

Jim Z.'s reconstruction looks good, but to me, it looks like the distal two phalanges should be lengthened a bit.
In the print used as the basis of the osteological restoration, only the tips of the toes are touching the ground, so the rest of the toe is arched and elevated above the substrate's surface. The result is that even though the toes look short, they're actually a bit longer than would be expected...more like what's seen in the reconstructed Australopithecus afarensis foot.
The double ball is well preserved in Patty's footprints and seems to reflect a genuine morphological feature that is different from the single pad on a human foot. Looking at a gorilla's or a chimp's foot reveals a similar cleft "ball" where the phalanx 1 of digit 1 meets the distal metatarsal. This is related to flexibility of the big toe and possibly we a re seeing something similar in the Sasquatch foot.

Thanks for the insight. Looking at many prints, I agree that the toes are bent more. I will have to modify my foot to reflect that (for my file anyway). Many prints really show the toes as separated distinctly from the foot which supports your contention. That is interesting that a chimp's and gorilla's foot shows a cleft ball. It never occured to me to inquire about that. I like that discription "cleft ball" better than double ball, but I guess the phase "double ball" does have a longer history in bigfoot lexicon.