It's suggested the foot retains some apelike characteristics, then again I've read a chimp isn't able to loch it's leg straight out at the knee either, as with the subject filmed. As for advantages, flexability, an then it all gets complicated from there...in layman's terms, sorry.

Pat...

Nevertheless there is that curious detail showing in the frame. As I said if there wasn't a cast and photo of the left foot showing such a detail then what appears in the late frame would be a curiosity. Now if its not a mid tarsal break then an other explanation (beyond film artifact and fluff off) is in order. Patty having a foot injury or deformation, or costume foot. Perhaps the detail in the left foot is why she didn't run from Patterson and Gimlin.

Here is the sole of a bonobo foot:

Click to view attachment




Could it be an arch?



Could it be a stick in the ground? Could it be the pressure ridge of a fake foot, as seen in experiments of Matt Crowley? Could it be a midtarsal break?




Not the issue, the issue is whether or not the film SHOWS a midtarsal break.







The problem here is that the ground obscures the foot as the foot is on the ground and it's position. The bend canoot be seen because the ground would obscure it, if it was there.

Click to view attachment



It's a shadow on the sole of the foot as the sole is away fro mthe direction of light. Look at any human with an arch and you will see the same curving in on the sole of the foot, the sole is not flat.

What I don't think you understand is that you are actually arguing AGAINST a midtarsal break. You are saying that the shape left in the track is the shape of the foot, but Meldrum theorizes that the shape in the track is from a pressure ridge made from the foots action.

I assume Jeff is referring to the LEFT foot in the rightmost image, and that the shading on the lowest part (as the foot disappears behind the ground) is seen to imply the bottom of a convex surface so the midfoot (just above) is well lit and slightly bulging?

I'll try to diagram later if that doesn't make sense. One of the issues for me is where exactly that toes are in that perspective/is that bulge midfoot and not forefoot. Would be nice to have the 3-4 isolated frames of that foot coming off the the ground.

-A

Apeman,

Jeff agrees the left foot shows the MTB. Not sure where you see the foot disappear behind ground though ? Apeman, I'd appreciate it if ya could do a diagram, maybe at least it would help point thin's out a little better. The buldge does appear midfoot, the shadow is just under the middle of the bend, or convex surface, as the front half of the foot is bein' elivated an thus causin' a shadow underneath it.

The image Crow Logic uses that also shows the cast, I'll try an explain. If ya doubled the size of the cast pretty much, it would be a closer fit. As the image she uses is only shows the back half of the actual foot. If ya drew a line through the middle of the depression in the cast, an lined it up pretty much with the shadow underfoot, that'd be pretty close. Midfoot thus MTB. Compare it when the entire foot is off the ground, again midfoot. Thanks for the patience an help with images people, I appreciate it.

Pat...

wolftrax,

You're good with computers, can ya work your magic ta show what I just mentioned ?

Thanks ! Pat...

Anyone have any time for a image with maybe lines pointin' to points of interest on left foot to help explain thin's ? I could do somethin' usin' my digicamera, but I'd need a email address to forward it to, as I have know idea how ta do this sorta stuff on the computer. I still get my brother to download photos an email them to me, so I can send them out. Pretty sad eh ! What can I say...ol' school I reckon.

Thanks !

Pat...

If I have time later I can do some of this.

Not claiming this sequence of frames (334-336) demonstrates a MTB, but it shows what you guys seem to looking for in later frames. In frame 336 the foot gets partially obscurred by debris, but note the visible shadow from the midfoot to the toes. Is this due to a convexity of the sole being lit from above?

Also note that the foot appears to be swinging laterally exposing a different angle of the sole. Does this suggest a "knock-kneed" gait? Just askin'.

I appreciate the effort people have put into trying to show the MTB of the subject in the PG film, good job. However, it is just not clear enough.

It's a blobreak...

IMO, no conclusion can be drawn from the pics presented here.

Gigantofootecus,

I've long thought these frames show evidence of the MTB, there are others in the film as well. As for the gate, I believe, at least what I see in the filmed subject, she brings her thighs/knees outwards as the foot is swung forward. Not to beat a dead horse, but it's another one of those similar physical characteristics shared with apes. Although modified somewhat to be more efficient bipedally, it's similar to the thigh/knee out noticed in apes walkin' bipedally. I've never been able to see the knee/toes in (first) as Doug H. mentions, the stuff Rubin Stiendorf (?) finds in Legend Meets Science.

Pat...

Just tryin' ta keep the conversation goin' here, been interestin'. Not to mention...pretty much completely positive stuff, an polite, I appreciate that. Will see if Tontar can give me a hand with an image, might help ?

Enjoy the day !

Pat...

If thin's work out, Tontar is goin' to post an image for me. I think it may help. It's a tad rough, but I don't know how ta do thin's on the computer. If or when it gets posted, I'll explain thin's.
It's been interestin' conversations regardin' the MTB, not to mention the frames bein' shown. Lookin' forward to a little more chit-chatin' regardin' it .

Until later...an thanks...

Pat...

The entire bipedal nature of bigfoot is probably the hardest thing for me to accept.

Where, when, and why would it evolve a locomotion system like that?

It just doesn't seem to make much sense for an animal to walk on two legs in a dense forest or mountainous region. Which would seem to suggest its ancestors developed bipedalism in some other environment. The most logical choices would for it to be a direct offshoot of homo sapiens or an offshoot of an earlier hominid. The first doesn't seem very likely, as there simply doesn't seem like enough time for such radical changes.

The idea of a non-homo sapien hominid evolving into bigfoot seems a bit more believable. But this would mean bigfoot's ancestors migrated great distances and would most likely have had to enter North America the same way humans did, by crossing the Bering land-bridge about 20,000-15,000 year ago. However, there is evidence of early hominids such as homo erectus migrating great distances over time and they may have traveled far into Asia. So we know some hominid populations eventually settled far from Africa, simply not quite as far as North America.

Then the other possibility is that bigfoot is descended from a different ape, and developed bipedalism independently of African hominids. Not entirely impossible. But then we are back to the question of why would an animal living in a forest or similar environment evolve away from quadrapedilism when it seems to be the most efficient and advantageous for such an environment. Perhaps somewhere in Asia an ape living in a flat, open landscape evolved the ability to walk on two feet for the same reason our ancestors did. And then that animal migrated across the pacific to North America at some point and become the bigfoot we are familiar with.

Mike K.W.,

There are a great many questions to ponder regardin' sasquatchs, one of the thin's that keeps my interest in the subject. I think we're dealin' with some form of hominoid, as I see more evidence both physically an in it's actions described by witnesses. That's just my opinion is all, others believe we're dealin' with some form of early/primitive hominid, an that's fine with me, I simply don't see it is all. To each...their own I reckon.

Pat...

Hey wolftrax,

I think Tontar will show a image for me. Might be interestin' to ya ? Just waitin' is all.

Pat...

Crow Logic,

Just tryin' to keep the topic goin', as there's more to it. I'd like to explain the image of the left foot you have circled. You have the heel up top, a slight shadow below it most likely do to the bottom of heel protrudin' slightly, then the back half of the sole of the foot,showin' the MTB. Below that is a shadow created by the front half of the foot startin' to lift off the ground. With regards to the cast you show, if you drew a line through the middle of the depression, that is what you're seein' in the image of her left foot that you use. Note the size of her foot in that frame, and compare it to a few frames later when her left foot is completely in the air, in midswing.

Pat...

Out of curiosity, we continually talk about different foot morphology with regards to sasquatches and humans, but do humans have different foot morphology and leave different footprints depending on where they're from. For instance, if we believe our ancestors had flexible feet and sasquatches likely leave mid-tarsal breaks due to the same trait, do humans who tend to not wear shoes also show a similar characteristic as opposed to us rigid-foot shoe-wearers? I know from living in areas where people don't tend to wear shoes that their feet appear to be larger and wider, so are they also more flexible than our shoe-wearing feet?

Mon0705,

I believe some minor variation in feet would be natural based on location and ones footware. Just as us shoe wearers toes are usually kinda scrunched up,babytoes curled inwards. I'm not positive, but I think it unlikely shoes would cause much variation in the arch of the foot. However, with age I believe people experience difficulties such as dropped arches, maybe even those of excess wieght...? As for foot flexibility, our feet bend between the toes an sole of the foot, even with fallen arches, I don't think it would create or cause the foot to bend between the ankle bones an the sole of the foot as suggested with sasquatchs. I'm no specialist, just one with an interest an a humble opinion is all.

Pat...

ps; But...(I know, I know...butts are for crappin' ) ya never know...

Pat, I was thinking in terms of humans who come from a long line of ancestors that haven't worn shoes, along the lines of people found on various islands of the Pacific or South America. If they, and their ancestors, never really wore footwear and continued to live a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, then do they leave footprints that might also contain something resembling a mid-tarsal break? I don't know the answer, I just assumed someone smarter than I about feet might know the answer.

No. As far back as Homo ergaster/erectus has the Homo lineage developed the arch in our foot, according to fossil evidence. The need for an arch is believed to have developed for long distance travel that erectus's hunter/scavenger/gatherer societies had. Erectus/ergaster/antecessor migrated all over on foot, and sasquatch would have had to do the same.

A few years ago, being nothing more than an interested amateur, I posted something questioning Dr. Meldrum's foot reconstruction.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st=#entry300929

It seemed to me, he didn't make the bones thick enough in his reconstruction. Essentially, I questioned long skinny bones in a large bipedal primate. Dr. Meldrum was kind enough to respond which impressed me enough to pretty much remember most of what he wrote.

It seemed to me that Dr. Meldrum has been underestimated by Dr. Eisner in the article. I don't think Dr. Meldrum came to his conclusions on foot structure by examining the film. It was probably more by careful examination of the footprints which was seemingly brushed aside by Dr. Eisner in his article.

I had some other problems with Dr. Eisner's comments, but the one that I had the most trouble with was regarding the comment about the hallux and why no arch. I think Dr. Meldrum correctly answered a similar criticism in the previous thread. In response to a question from LAL, Dr. Meldrum stated:

"The MT break has little to do with the loss of divegence of the big toe, until the fixation of the arch, at which point the aligned big toe becomes the distal support of the arch. There are a number of interacting modifications at play during the evolution of the modern human foot. (Some people should do the research required before asserting their opinions with such conviction.)"
(I should make it clear that Dr. Meldrum was not referring to Dr. Eisner)

I found that particular argument from Dr. Eisner to be quite weak. He seems to expect either an arch with a big toe aligned with the others as found in modern humans or an ape foot found in modern great apes. Modern apes are all arboreal at least to some extent so having the ability to grab branches with their foot is necessary. A bipedal bigfoot with non arched and flexible feet wouldn't flex them the way an ape would when grabbing a branch. It would obviously bend the other way to roll on the ground as it distributes its weight through each step. It would seem silly and downright illogical in a functional way to assume bigfoot should have a divergent big toe (one that juts out to the side). Form follows function and the function is to efficiently move the animal forward. Having a toe alinged in the direction of travel and near the center of gravity would be most efficient in my opinion.

Well, I better not stay up to late. Fridays are always the days when I am on a sleep deficit.

Mon0705,

I agree what Wolftrax said. The arch came into play long before shoes had anythin' ta do with thin's.

Pat...

Floresiensis didn't have an arch. I sure wouldn't assume that it was a requirement for leaving Africa or even walking efficiently.

Can ya expand on that BobZenor ?

Thanks !

Pat...

There are a lot of articles about floresiensis feet. They are proportionately very large and flat. They certainly made it out of Africa and it is likely their ancestor was somewhat more primitive than erectus when they did it. There are other ways to make an efficient walking foot than how our ancestors did it. We opted for large legs and small feet with a rigid but elastic arch to add spring. I don't know for sure but I suspect that is more a design for running long distances on flat hard surfaces. I don't really see how that would actually help walking but it might add a small percentage of energy on the push off. Other ways to increase the efficiency is to allow the foot to bend and roll through rather then having to come up completely on the ball like on a human. We save energy by locking the knees. You can have elastic tendons store some of that energy in the thighs or elsewhere. We store much energy in the tendons that hold the arch or the plantar fascia and the very long Achilles tendon. I just don't think there is much energy returned while walking but I can't feel my feet flexing at all. It just seems like it probably happens more when you run. I would have to see some studies on that to know for sure.

If you want to make a running machine, you want to have smaller rigid feet that ideally have elastic tendons. Big feet on the end of long legs requires a lot of energy to move around. Another strategy would be shorter legs, longer somewhat flexible feet that roll some. It is kind of hard to explain that and even harder to imagine all the ways to make that sort of gate more efficient. I am fairly convince that what I heard was a bigfoot and it was sounding just like a truck tire as its foot rolled on the dirt road above the Patterson site. That made me put some thought into why it would be designed that way. I don't see how a rigid foot makes us more efficient in walking. I think the efficiency mainly comes when we run and the rigid foot probably hurts the efficiency of the walk though the elastic arch probably helps. Rising up is a waste of energy even though some of that energy might get stored in the tendons. I wouldn't trust anyone that assumed something that wasn't designed just like a human was necessarily less efficient. I remember the subject of this thread seeming to be that sort of person. He even seemed to see not having an arch as being equivalent to being pathological. It is a lack of imagination and experience with evolutionary biology that causes people to have that attitude. Nature finds endless ways to make efficient mechanisms that aren't immediately obvious. Making an efficient walking gate isn't even that difficult to imagine without a rigid foot.

I remember a show on TV a couple years ago on a very large Homo heidelbergensis from Africa which they nicknamed Goliath which they said was so big it must have had trouble cooling itself. In a conversation amounst ourselves, Bob and I mocked it because obviously elephants cool themselves and are far bigger. Humans have one of the greatest radiators in the Animal Kingdom for number of reasons. We sweat, we are vertical and therefore less cross section in the noon sun, more wind across our torso, etc. This should allow our form to grow relatively large. If an elephant could do it, why not a hominoid. Surely if there anything in the human physiology limiting us from that growth, it wouldn't be heat. It was ability to cool ourselves that led our ancestors to theoretically be one of the most dangerous predators in the world by persistence hunting.

Similarly, it seems to me that elephants without an arch in their foot left Africa so why not our hypothetical archless ancestor (or fellow hominoid). I am not saying it did. I am simply saying why not, particularly if it had other things going for it such as a very large size to add protection from predators and/or the elements?

For an arch to develop in a very large animal, it seems to me that the stresses in the foot of that large animal would increase proportional to weight (i.e in three dimentions) whereas bone and tendon strength increases in two dimensions. The consequence of this would be that the arch would have to be supported by much greater cross section proportionately in the large foot to support the arch. Those stresses have to be accounted for in the strength of joints, bones, tendons and muscles. I don't know. It just seems to me if you scale it up, you cannot assume with any certainty that the same structures will remain advantageous. In addition, other forces and stresses caused by an arched foot might also cause stresses at the other joints if the arched foot causes a less compliant gait.

There is a difference and a lot of dispute on whether not having an arch means having a midtarsal break, specifically in reference to afarensis and the Laetoli tracks, which are disputed to not showing a midtarsal break. They do not, however, look like the Patty track said to have a midtarsal break.

Orangutans ancestors also migrated out of Africa, but many of these apes these days seem to be stuck in the areas they've been for millions of years.

Yes, we do know our arches are more efficient for walking long distances than a flat foot, and flat feet can cause other problems:
http://seniorhealth.about.com/od/footcondi...a/flat_feet.htm

This is where the author was coming from.

Evolutionary wise, we do know that the tarsal bones of many bipedal apes such as the Australopithecines were more apelike, but exactly how they worked has long been in dispute. There are two sides to this issue that extend far beyond the author of this article and Meldrum.

There is some flexibility in the MT joint even on human feet. It is just tied up very tightly by ligaments to gain elastic bounce. It would be rather difficult to lock that joint on foot and not have it be a source of injury especially if it were flat footed. The arch shifts the load into compressional forces which are much easier for the foot to deal with. That is one of the sources of the problems with flat feet. The arch may be just something that evolved to allow long distance running. That is where we excel relative to most other animals. It could be what enabled erectus to hunt effectively. Since there were other hominids besides the lineage of erectus that evolved the arch, there must have been other strategies that evolution used to increase walking efficiency. The arch does go back far enough that any hominid that didn't have an arch probably shouldn't have been classified in the same species. The foot of floresiensis was much larger than a modern human so if it didn't bend it would have had to rise up much or on the ball or I would think it would be like walking with swim fins.

I don't think that problems that apply to the human foot.likely apply to other feet that evolved differently. The human foot was obviously extensively modified. When it comes to evolution, I rarely buy the notion that any animal is maladapted and certainly not hominids that had been walking upright with flat feet for millions of years.

Well, Bob, the problem is that morphologically all we have are modern human feet to see how a flat foot would work on a biped, and the Laetoli tracks. That is all we really have to see how flat feet would work and not work in a biped. Like it or not, you're going to have a lot of disagreements on something like that, and each one with strong points, but a lot more speculation.

Personally, I'm not opposed to a midtarsal break, but I think a lot more options are available.

They have some erectus prints from the time of Turkana boy. They are reported to have had an arch. That is 1.5 million years old and was rather surprising to me since there seems to be a seemingly closely related lineage, floresiensis, that didn't have the arch. You probably have to take it back at least 2 million years before erectus to find the beginning of bipedalism. It could much earlier.

I think the vast majority of scientists are still assuming that erectus is the only species to leave Africa. It is a deeply set mentality because it has been taught for many decades and the textbooks haven't caught up yet. There is always a strong resistance to those kinds of changes so it will probably take a while. It comes down to simple logic for me. Floresiensis and whatever lineage they evolved from had apparently been walking upright for millions of years with those feet. If there were problems, they would have found evolutionary solutions. There are other hominids that existed at that time that also didn't likely have the arch but they probably lived part of their lives in trees and are not known to have made the journey to Asia. You could argue that they might survive with a less efficient foot. I still doubt it was the walking ability that stopped them. It was probably other hominids, predators or being tied to trees that prevented the journey.

Floresiensis seems to be changing what they think about feet but it is going to take some time before they agree on "simple" things like how they walked.

Yeah you have the erectus prints, you also have neanderthal prints and some human prints in hawaii. The point being that they have an arch, and not really going to help you see whether they leave an indication of the midtarsal break or not. That's the key.

And no, it's not that simple, and the reason why is the Laetoli tracks. They don't have an obvious midtarsal break. They were flat footed, yeah, but an obvious break? No. Meldrum has done a good job of showing the pressure disk a chimp can make from a midtarsal break, and there some of the Laetoli tracks have something that does resemble that, but then you ask the person who was there on site and studied those tracks more than anybody else, Tim White, and he'll tell you that it doesn't have a midtarsal break and that interpretations saying so are mistaking a chisel mark from Mary Leakey.

Either way, though, it's very subtle and the Patty track by comparison is very dramatic. But here we are getting into a whole new complicated area, we're taking a foot analysis of known hominids that in itself is controversial and cannot be verified by the subjects living foot and muscle, and applying that to a cryptozoological animal that has a high potential of hoaxing. Is this a break, or is this the result of stepping on a stick? The break does look geometric, it looks like a straight diagonal line, like a stick was stepped on. If this was a fake foot, then it wouldn't have a midtarsal break, but it could look like one. The weight distribution is different between the Laetoli tracks and Patty. The toe arrangement is different.

We can think up of all kinds of ways why this could be with very little evidence to support it, but the thing is, it won't change it. You're still going to have people disagreeing on it, and will have good points and bad. Floresiensis didn't and won't change that, this dispute has been going on since the discovery of the Laetoli tracks in the 70s, because you have the foot bones from afarensis and the tracks from afarensis to compare.

BTW, the lack of an arch in floresiensis indicates that it didn't evolve from erectus but an earlier hominid, like an Australopithecine.

There are some other characteristics of floresiensis that point to something even earlier than habilis. They don't seem to have that calibrated very well because there is probably millions of years where it might have changed and there are no other fossils to go by.

I totally agreed with your description of how the MT would probably look on a walking bigfoot. It probably isn't very dramatic and would be very hard to see. I only see it falling on a spectrum where the foot bend a few degrees, which is essentially rigid, to maybe bending 30 degrees None of the evidence is very convincing to me about the MT joint except that I am sure Dr. Meldrum knows more than I and he seems to be seeing something. I don't see a problem with it from a simple mechanical point of view if it isn't taken to extremes. Then it might interfere with walking efficiency. The owner of the Laetoli tracks must have had a MT break but the question is really how tightly bound by ligaments and tendons they were. If they didn't have an arch, I would expect them to be somewhat flexible since that is the location of stress when it lands of the front of the foot. It seems to me that it should bend some is all I am really saying. We aren't really much in disagreement as near as I can tell. I may just be more open to idea that it could be an efficient means of bipedal locomotion to have a fairly flexible foot because that seems most likely to me. It could probably evolve a very efficient walk with a rigid flat foot as well. My main problem with that is that it seems like it would be vulnerable like flat footed human feet are. Sorry if I am probably rambling..

Interestin' read, good stuff ! I guess I'm still a tad surprised some are havin' trouble seein' the MTB evident in her left foot as it leaves the ground, I see it clear as. Bob Zenor, Jim Zenor do you see it in the frames I pointed out to wolftrax ? Just wonderin is all.

Pat...

You can't see the foot making contact with the ground. You would have to see the front part on the ground at one angle while at the same time see the heel raise up at a different angle, in order to see the midtarsal break. The ground is obscuring the foot while is in contact with the ground, watch as you see the dark top of the foot disappear when the foot makes contact. That is why you or I cannot see the midtarsal break.

The most interesting was the one that Gigantofootecus posted. That looked a lot like a surface that it could roll on. Even that one was too distorted to see clearly. It did look like more of an MT break than I would expect since it wasn't supporting wieght.

The picture at the end looked like it might have been an MT break but it could have been a shadow. I thought the left foot looked like a MT break but it was very difficult to see It was also bent in the direction that doesn't seem logical for a walking foot so that makes me even more skeptical. It is too hard to see what is going on with the foot to make any conclusions from that distance.

wolftrax,

I agree the right foot is obscured by the ground, however, I don't believe the left foot is, as it is placed further ahead of the right. Initially you can see the heel an inner foot/sole. As the heel is raised you see the shadow on the ground under her foot, caused by the front half of her foot. I'm gettin' the idea you're lookin' for the MTB in the right foot, when it is only visible in the left foot.

Pat...

BobZenor,

I agree, the frames Gigantofootecus posted does show a interestin' bend to the foot, suggestin' the MTB I believe. I'm not sure what you meant regardin' ''bent in the direction that doesn't seem logical..." Could you expand on that.

Thanks !

Pat..

earlier Wolftrax post

When I look at the left foot, it seems to be plantar flexing or away from the knee. Honestly, I am not even sure I am looking at the left foot. That would make it more difficult to walk if it had much flexibility in that direction. It would require a lot of muscular involvement during every step which wouldn't be very energy efficient. I am not saying it can't do it but it just seems a bit odd that it would be that flexible. Bending the other way could easily be to make the gait more efficient by not having to rise up on the ball.

Still not 100% sure bout the plantar flexin' or away from the knee. An I almost fell outta the chair when ya said you're honestly not sure you're lookin' at the left foot !?!?! ha ! ha ! As her foot is elivated an begins to swing forward, her knee/thigh turns outwards somewhat. The right foot comes into view first, we don't get a decent look at the left foot till the right swings forward, then the left foot leaves the ground (showin' the MTB).

Pat...

That Gif isn't easy to see. It requires quite a lot of concentration to see what is going on. The human mind is capable of filling in blanks and seeing different interpretations. It is reassuring that what I thought you were talking about is what I was seeing. I have a history of seeing things that others apparently don't like in the Klamath animation I did so I am not confident about other people's ability to see moving Gifs the same way. It could still just be a shadow on the bottom of the foot. Dorsiflexing is up toward the knee and is what the chimp in the earlier pictures in this thread did. Plantar flexing would be like grabbing the ground or it could aid in pushing off.

I think based on the shadows an highlighted areas, the shadow is on the ground below the foot. The knee/thigh outword is somewhat similar to what is seen in chimps etc. walkin' bipedally, as is the inability to lock her knees straight out (from what I've read on chimps). I reckon havin' bad eyesight in my younger days an not wearin' my glasses, wasn't such a bad thin'. I simply payed more attention to movement, shape, size etc. Probably the reason I noticed these frames in the first place.

Pat...

Left foot top obscured by ground.

Not to sure bout that wolftrax, your line doesn't point to top of foot. If it did, she'd be massively pigeontoed. Note the angle of her lower leg/calf. Notice the light spot reflectin' off her heel, look just to the right of that an you'll notice partial inner foot(side of foot).

Pat...

You're saying you can see thetop of the foot in that image?

Ok, let's just make sure we are on the same page here. Attached is an animation showing the famr blown up and closeup on the foot, and then on top of that are the handy red lines showing the leg, the back of the heel, and a portion of the top of the foot that is angled behind the leg and away from the camera, and also angled down towards below the ground plane. Clcik to view:

Click to view attachment

Alright, we can see there is a shadow behind the foot, but from what we can see the foot is angled down below the ground plane. We may see the top of the foot that angles up above the ground plane, but unless we are putting forward that Patty's foot is shaped like a triangle, the front part is obscured by the ground plane. We really have no idea if there is a bend at the tarsals, or at the ball of the foot, or if it's a person in a suit if the bend is where their ball is inside a rubber foot. The reason we don't see this is because we do not see the foot interracting with the ground.

I simply don't see why you think it below the ground plane. Right beside me in the room is a full length merror, I just went over an checked, try it yourself. An again, not tryin' ta drive ya nuts here wolftrax, but I dissagree, I think, I believe in my honest opinion, that we are seein' the foot interact with the ground.

Pat...

Then where is the rest of the foot?

Replying to the question if I think I have seen the bending of the foot in the film, I can't say that I have with any certainty. I have watched the frames countless times looking for it. She walks in such a way that is consistent with her foot bending particularly if you watch her walk fluidly over obstacles but it is hard to be very certain. Even where Dr. Meldrum points to where the foot flexes, I saw it, it was interesting, but I am not certain it is real since if is pretty quick and pretty blurry. I am fairly well convinced her foot flexes based on the tracks. I believe that she is in fact flexing her foot as she walks but it is unlucky that it isn't more definitive in the film.

Sittin' here lookin' at the reflection of my foot in the mirror, with my foot on a slight angle, my heel is visible, I point my toes directly at the mirror...my reel is no longer visible.

Pat...