We had threads about this before. Foot #8 that washes ashore in Canada, 11 total in the area. :unsure:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Running+shoe+with+human+foot+found+Vancouver+False+Creek/5330654/story.html
Quote
Running shoe with human foot in it found in Vancouver's False Creek
VANCOUVER — Another foot has washed ashore in Vancouver, police said Tuesday.
Tuesday's discovery marks the eighth foot to be found on the B.C. coast since August 2007. Three more have washed up in nearby Washington.
Vancouver police Const. Jana McGuinness said that a person reported finding "the remains of what appear to be a human foot and leg bones in a running shoe" on Tuesday afternoon.
"The shoe was found floating in the water next to the Plaza of Nations marina in False Creek," she said in a news release.
Police and officials from the BC Coroner's Service are investigating the discovery.
"There is no indication at this early stage in the investigation how the remains came to be there," McGuinness said.
The first foot, discovered in August 2007 on Jedediah Island, northeast of Nanaimo, B.C., was associated with a deceased man whose name police withheld at the request of his family.
A man's right foot found on Gabriola Island in August 2007 remains unidentified.
Two feet found on Valdez and Westham islands in July 2008 belonged to the same man.
And two female feet found in Richmond, B.C., in December 2008 belonged to the same woman.
In October 2009, a right foot was discovered on a beach in Richmond.
There have also been several hoaxes that turned out to be animal bones — the most recent was in March.
All of the feet discovered so far have been in running shoes.
It sounds like Al Bundy financially snapped and became a serial killer.
Well, a lot of people who do not actually run, wear running shoes* as "casual" shoes. And reports about lots of joggers going missing would surely have attracted a fair bit of attention in itself.
*And by "running shoes", they probably include the very broad range of tennis shoes and sneakers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 01, 2011, 12:50:37 AM
Well, a lot of people who do not actually run, wear running shoes* as "casual" shoes. And reports about lots of joggers going missing would surely have attracted a fair bit of attention in itself.
*And by "running shoes", they probably include the very broad range of tennis shoes and sneakers.
:yes:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2011, 12:46:08 AM
It sounds like Al Bundy financially snapped and became a serial killer.
OH AL!
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
Mart has booked his tickets for a flight already.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
Other cities have shoes washed up in pairs?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
Other cities have shoes washed up in pairs?
And they weren't just running shoes either, but proper footwear. Vancouver = classless.
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 02:05:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
Other cities have shoes washed up in pairs?
And they weren't just running shoes either, but proper footwear. Vancouver = classless.
As noted running shoe has become a generic phrase. It could mean sneaker - whatever that is, tennis shoe or it could mean high end designer hicking shoes. If the said foot was from Vancouver it would be the high end shoe. If it belonged to a tourist from Toronto it would likely be a sneaker.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 02:05:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
Other cities have shoes washed up in pairs?
And they weren't just running shoes either, but proper footwear. Vancouver = classless.
As noted running shoe has become a generic phrase. It could mean sneaker - whatever that is, tennis shoe or it could mean high end designer hicking shoes. If the said foot was from Vancouver it would be the high end shoe. If it belonged to a tourist from Toronto it would likely be a sneaker.
Why would you guys need special hicking shoes? You are already hicks. :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 02:10:35 PM
Why would you guys need special hicking shoes? You are already hicks. :D
The Hicks are adept at spelling and so they help the rest of us; however, they are powerless without their shoes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2011, 03:33:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Hicks are adept at spelling
Not as a rule, no.
These are Vancouver Hicks we are talking about. The best place in the world - proof of which is our hicks can spell very well. Bet the Economist didnt take that into consideration while they were thinking Vancouver Island must be part of Vancouver - same name after all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2011, 03:33:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Hicks are adept at spelling
Not as a rule, no.
These are Vancouver Hicks we are talking about. The best place in the world - proof of which is our hicks can spell very well. Bet the Economist didnt take that into consideration while they were thinking Vancouver Island must be part of Vancouver - same name after all.
Hey, they explained that - they took into account the conditions in the "surrounding area". They were not so silly as to mistake the island for the city. Nope. Not at all. Not one little bit.
:D
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2011, 12:05:05 PM
So maybe this is why Vancouver lots that top spot in the top cities list from the other thread... :hmm:
I do not think it is the sole reason.
Quote from: Malthus on September 01, 2011, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2011, 03:33:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Hicks are adept at spelling
Not as a rule, no.
These are Vancouver Hicks we are talking about. The best place in the world - proof of which is our hicks can spell very well. Bet the Economist didnt take that into consideration while they were thinking Vancouver Island must be part of Vancouver - same name after all.
Hey, they explained that - they took into account the conditions in the "surrounding area". They were not so silly as to mistake the island for the city. Nope. Not at all. Not one little bit.
:D
So should they also discount congestion on Long Island when evaluating NYC?
NYC is on long island.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2011, 08:32:34 PM
So should they also discount congestion on Long Island when evaluating NYC?
Hey with that kind of knowledge you should apply to the Economist.
Has it finally been confirmed if these feet have been cut through forced trauma, or whether these are feet detached from corpses who drowned in the Northeastern Pacific?