My cousin – who happens to be staying at my place for the weekend – is considerably taller than me: 6’3 to my 5.9. I take a size 12 or 12,5 in US sizes – with him taking a size ten or 10,5.

In short (heh), I don’t think you can safely guesstimate a person’s height/weight based on shoe size unless the latter is off the chart. If a guy takes a size 20 shoe, you can safely assume he’s not a midget. But beyond that, I doubt it.

Anyway, the real question here is whether they would have been fooled by an old impression – or rather a set of old impressions. And I don’t think so.

They did tests – as jroberson says above – on site. If it had been impossible to leave a print, they would have noticed. If the ground is loose or gravelly to an extent, it doesn’t matter that it’s not moist – you can still leave a print.

Besides, you shouldn’t really be fooled by an old, sun scorched print – you shouldn’t mistake that for a fresh one. A whole bunch of cops and park rangers and whatnot simply wouldn’t make such a basic mistake.

I agree Norse, they followed the tracks down to the Victims, and back up to Hartnell’s car door where Z wrote

On average,

Quote: "Height of an individual either male/female is 6.5 times the length of his/her foot length."

Quote: "significant correlation"

http://www.biomedscidirect.com/879/stud … categories

For me this happens to be spot on.

On average,

Quote: "Height of an individual either male/female is 6.5 times the length of his/her foot length."

Quote: "significant correlation"

http://www.biomedscidirect.com/879/stud … categories

For me this happens to be spot on.

That would make me 91" tall or almost 8ft tall,and I am only 72" tall or 6ft tall

Then you are an outlier.

Then you are an outlier.

Multiple people here have chimed in that they are over 6ft tall and have 10-11" shoes

Then you are an outlier.

Multiple people here have chimed in that they are over 6ft tall and have 10-11" shoes

6’5” and got normal 12 size, so imo Z was never taller than 6’2”…imo.

There still is the possibility that Z had an average 6’0”, btw.

QT

Been some debate whether the 10.5" wingwalkers were actually 10.5 or not. The pic shows them to be longer, and the report mentions them to be 13" in length.

Just a little project I did using my 14" Skecher shoe. The print is not as easy to see as the wingwalker track, but with the ruler next to it in a similar fashion to the Wingwalker pic, you can see that the print itself measures almost 14"

Compare to the wingwalker pic

To me the Zodiac one appears to be 12", but as you stated, the report shows 13".

What is your shoe size again morf?

To me the Zodiac one appears to be 12", but as you stated, the report shows 13".

What is your shoe size again morf?

I wear 14wides

I wonder what the numbers 10 & 26 mean on the wingwalker pic?

To me the Zodiac one appears to be 12", but as you stated, the report shows 13".

What is your shoe size again morf?

I wear 14wides

From what I could tell, a 14" foot doesn’t equal a size 14. What am I looking at wrong?

http://www.zappos.com/c/shoe-size-conve … AkqX8P8HAQ

As a measurement, our foot derives from the length of Edward I’s foot. Incidentally, Eddie (reputedly one of my ancestors via a kitchen wench, no doubt) was nicknamed "Longshanks." From the waist down he was, apparently, quite a man.

I wonder what the numbers 10 & 26 mean on the wingwalker pic?

Reference numbers of some kind?

Heel print = Evidence No 10
Toe impression = Evidence No 26

No idea, really – could be something else entirely.

Could mean anything, but probably nothing.