THE PACK Message Boards

The picture attached to this article, touted as a yeti foot, actually looks pretty werewolfy to me. The moment I saw it, I began getting ideas about using it as a model for drawing better werewolf art.

It does look more werewolfish then yeti. Looks like it may have pads and claws. As far as I know, no primate ever has those features on their feet. Interesting

The photograph of the limb does not look human-like at all to me. ...my first thought was that it reminded me of a Lion's paw... (...not that I even really know what a lions paw looks like...), but the x-ray of the foot looks undeniably humanoid.

I'm quite perplexed as to what to make of this. Whatever this thing was, it appears that it was a vertically stanced, plantigrade, furry, claw-toed creature.

...extrordinary...

hmmmm, yeti or werewolf it looks pretty cool.... maybe more paranormal hunters should go to siberia

Weird...

hey he wares a size 36
now why would they say that is would be like a human?

Rooster Urlakane wrote:hey he wares a size 36
now why would they say that is would be like a human?

because they are dumbasses

It certainly does have more canine or possibly feline than simian in it.

Which raises a question for another potential thread starter: Out of all the legends concerning shapeshifters and beasts of legend, how many of them could be the same thing?

Terastas wrote:It certainly does have more canine or possibly feline than simian in it.

Which raises a question for another potential thread starter: Out of all the legends concerning shapeshifters and beasts of legend, how many of them could be the same thing?

it could be a creature with no legends about it that is somewhat like a half wolf half man but is not a werewolf

Not to rain on the parade here, but looking at that from a wildlife artist's eye:



Bear foot, specificly the hind foot. Probably an extinct species of bear.

Just my two beans.

That's certainly a possibility, but if you ask me, I think it'd be more of a stretch to classify it as ursine as opposed to canine or feline. I don't see anything human-like about it, but if that's science's consensus about it, I can give it the benefit of a doubt.

I personaly would not just take one or two looks at a single, rather large and hairy leg and make an asumption that it is some sort of missing link between the human and the Bearingston Bears for heavens sake!

Goldenwolf wrote:Not to rain on the parade here, but looking at that from a wildlife artist's eye:
...Bear foot, specificly the hind foot. Probably an extinct species of bear.

Good eye Goldenwolf. You are probobly right...or at least closer to the truth than the scientists who think it is a Yeti.

After I saw it I instantly thought bear foot, it looks very much like the hind leg of one. It looks capable of being stood apon strait up but doesn't look as though it came from a human or primate. I defeintly thought bear, and it seems Goldie has also pointed this out.

I sappose hen ever I drew werewolves I alays gave them normal back feet but made them bigger for space so to balance themselves hen they stood up. I sappose making the feet longer could help that.

The foot itself looks like a furry, carnivorous mammal, but as a doctor, I can say the X-rays definitely look like a human foot.

I've considered the Yeti a real undiscovered mammal rather than a legend ever since I saw footage of one that showed up on an amateur vacation video. This foot looks like part of the same kind of creature. It was a primate, about eight feet tall, that was fairly aggressive--more than a gorilla by far, but less than a lion; the vacationers all survived. Imagine a greyish white wookie.

If they had anything like taxidermy a few thousand years ago, perhaps they managed to wrap a human foot in bearhide, with some technique that modern taxidermists don't have of hiding the stitches. This would explain a bearish exterior with human-like bones inside.
Another possibility is that it is a genetic freak, a human with animal-like deformities. Some remarkably animal-like deformities do show up in the history of human genetic mutants, for example skin that has exactly the texture of an alligator's skin, or feet that resemble an ostrich. Since we do know that viruses occasionally cause genes to jump from one species to another by accident, perhaps some of these deformities could be so exactly like a different species because they come directly from the DNA of that other species.

Yeah, I can tell you from my own background in medicine, that those xrays, and that photo, just don't match up.

hoax a plenty.

But one problem with your theory

Friggen size 36 shoes
if it was human

Jamie wrote:If they had anything like taxidermy a few thousand years ago, perhaps they managed to wrap a human foot in bearhide, with some technique that modern taxidermists don't have of hiding the stitches. This would explain a bearish exterior with human-like bones inside.
Another possibility is that it is a genetic freak, a human with animal-like deformities. Some remarkably animal-like deformities do show up in the history of human genetic mutants, for example skin that has exactly the texture of an alligator's skin, or feet that resemble an ostrich. Since we do know that viruses occasionally cause genes to jump from one species to another by accident, perhaps some of these deformities could be so exactly like a different species because they come directly from the DNA of that other species.

They didn't have taxidermy thousands of years ago. I strongly doubt that one could create a taxidermical fraud thousands of years before even sewing needles were invented. I have to agree with Master Brownrigg, in that, the x-ray and the photo don't match up very well. Besides, what would be the point of stuffing a human foot into the skin of a bear's foot thousands of years ago?
Furthermore, while virii can and do jump species on extremely rare ocassions, it's even rarer for these trans-species virii to introduce new genes into their new hosts, save to cause cancers or tumors. Sort of like, trying to cause an explosion by shooting live bees at a golden retriever puppy.

Terastas wrote:That's certainly a possibility, but if you ask me, I think it'd be more of a stretch to classify it as ursine as opposed to canine or feline. I don't see anything human-like about it, but if that's science's consensus about it, I can give it the benefit of a doubt.

Actually, I'm really going to have to agree with Goldie here on several accounts.
It would DEFINATELY be more ursine than canine or feline for two large reasons:
1) the foot is plantigrade. Contrary to some belief, not all large carnivorous mammals are digitigrade - bears being the notable exception. their feet may be large compared to a human, but much shorter than a canine or feline proportionally. They walk on the flat of their feet - hence the look on the remains (and Goldie's picture) of a pad along the entire base of the foot. This is actually supported wiht the photograph - showing a distinct heel.
2) 5 toes. Dogs and cats only have 4 toes on their back feet. Bears have 5.

It's not a great picture, but here's a skeletal bear where you can see that the anatomy in the feet isn't THAT different from a humans': http://www.mathematical.com/mammothcavebear.html

Honestly, I don't see anything in either of the photographs that would make me think it was anything but a bear :/.

I know it's only 2005, but we do have rudamentary DNA testing. We could test the foot and see whether it's bear, primate, other carnivore, or some rare and exotic breed of nagahide.

Still, I can't wait until humanity is brave enough with DNA to learn things like genetic engineering. Then we'll have the know-how to put together the pieces and see what the thing looks like whole.

Scott Gardener wrote: Imagine a greyish white wookie.

So....

Someone cut off Chewbacca's foot then...?

Must've been an angry Star Wars fan who cut it. They really didn't like Chewy.

Baphnedia wrote:Must've been an angry Star Wars fan who cut it. They really didn't like Chewy.

Or a collector.

SOME ONE HATES CHEWY!
those sick muthas