|
#11
●
04-13-2010, 04:27 PM
|
|
Re: Found the Remains of a Man, Only Legs and Boots
Lol Lad. It most certainly wasn't my intention to make you look the fool. My apologies. ;) Lol and I'm pretty sure that li'l ditty goes along the lines of, "The shin bone's connected to the knee bone. The knee bone's connected to the thigh bone..." |
|
#12
●
04-13-2010, 05:01 PM
|
|
Re: Found the Remains of a Man, Only Legs and Boots
no offence taken RT, my problem is i never listen, and you might notice in other post's, i write b4 i look closely, so am alway's being corrected, but i never seem to learn, so feel free to put me straight, i will alway's take my punishment. take care |
|
#16
●
04-13-2010, 05:34 PM
|
|
Re: Found the Remains of a Man, Only Legs and Boots
Naaah.. I'm tending to disagree with that, Dropone. ;) How can the length of the socks possibly be used as a guide? I dunno about you, but I've got heaps of different length pairs of socks.. from knee-highs down to li'l sports socks that barely reach the lip of my trainers. I can't see how the sock length would have a bearing on anything. The girth of the socks may be a li'l more indicative of the size the leg used to be.. but even going by that is still flawed. I've got chunky socks that look huge, and I've got thinner socks that when I take them off they shrink down and look like they belong to a 10yr old. How long are the tibia and fibula expected to be? I'm tall and I can easily see those bones being the same length as the ones in my legs.. and, by the same token, I can look at those bones and see them "short" too. There's just nothing to do a comparison by. |
|
#18
●
04-14-2010, 04:14 AM
|
|
Re: Found the Remains of a Man, Only Legs and Boots
i offered not anything definitive, but rather an idea of what can be taken from what is already presented, meaning, work on variables given if there's nothing else to work with. socks lenght and girth (the ones on the photo) were the variables i've mentioned, those doesn't even come close looking like my socks as well. stripping the thick soles of the shoes, the remaining height then would at least be twice for the exposed part of the sock. a little something we can use for the remaining part of either the tibia or the fibula. those then are quite short sets of bones in reference to the shoes and socks. |
|
#19
●
04-14-2010, 05:28 AM
|
|
Re: Found the Remains of a Man, Only Legs and Boots
And as I said.. I'm tending to disagree with that, your "idea", and I gave my reasons why. And I STILL disagree. How can the shoes or socks be used to guage the size of the bones when you don't even know the size of the shoes and socks? Is that a child's small size 4 shoe? Or is it an adults large size 16 shoe? If you knew THAT then, yes, a better idea could be gotten of the bone length from them. But who knows what size the shoes are? Call me dumb, but I don't understand the logic behind determining the bone length by something else that you don't even know the size of (the shoes and socks). That just makes no sense whatsoever to me. |