Sdp claims to be 8.5 inches
He says Mandingo's dick is 8.7 inches
Anyone can see Mandingo's dick is more than 0.2 longer than sdp.
It's only fair that we use his own methodology on his own dick.
But we aren't talking about fair or unfair, there is a simple truth of this matter: the measurement of Mandingo. From 100+ pictures, he clocks in at around an average 9", or 8.7" to be exact. An average is basically all of the measurements added together, divided by the number of total measurements taken. I suggest sdp take the range, median, and mode (he's already done the mean, or average) just to get you to stop whining, because they usually don't yield the same results. Here is a link describing the process:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm
By the way, here's a tip: this thread is not dedicated to comparison of members, if you want to apply this process to sdp, or whoever else, start your own thread.
Something of interest: even in your derailment, you are incapable of using the methodology sdp used, you are still using eyeballing techniques and calling it a day. I will take this as a sign of your incompetence, so I will literally do everything for you:
https://www.raymond.cc/blog/use-computer-to-measure-length-width-and-heigth-without-a-ruler/
That's a link of a bunch of pixel measurement tools. All you need to do is get about ten images of Mandingo and use just one of these tools to measure a standard reference frame and his length. Then, get an average of those numbers. It will still be less than one-tenth of the size of sdp's image pool, but maybe you can get a more realistic idea when you, you know, actually measure the thing instead of compare it. In case you haven't noticed, it is pretty difficult to look at things and guess how long they are. If I held my hand up and asked you to guess the measurement from my pinky to my thumb, you would give me a ballpark. In reality, it is 8 inches long, but you will never know until you guess it. Circumference is even MORE tricky, which makes me think that people who assert with such confidence lengths/girths are doing so with the help of a narrative they are wishing to push, or a confirmation bias.
I will write the steps out for you.
1. Save ten random images of Mandingo. Not ones you picked out before, just ten random images. Try and be truthful.
2. Go to the link I posted and use one of those tools. If you have a Mac, go find a tool for Mac.
3. Open up the image of Mandingo and use the pixel measurement tool to measure out a standard reference frame (object we can use to be sure of the size 'x' relative to this object).
4. Now measure Mandingo's length.
5. Calculate the mean (average) of your measurements.
6. Present your findings.
We are dealing with digital images, not images with rulers in them. However, sdp realized that this is not actually the case, and that the image itself IS a ruler, because it is comprised of a pixel, which is a great unit to measure the image with. You don't seem to realize how accurate this is, as a pixel is basically a unit of measurement, in the context of our conversation. It is much more accurate than your eyeballing technique, we can get a solid answer, as opposed to hearsay.
If you don't bother replying to this post with your findings and just continue linking non-sequiturs or shifting the burden of proof, then it is clear that you are just baiting for replies, as I have literally provided you a guide because you were too lazy to read sdp's post. We are all waiting for a response. For future reference, you don't need to be spoonfed like a child in order to realize how to do something as simple as this. Again, like I said from the start, I think your reluctance is because you have no argument to present, and know that sdp's results are the best we have, better than your eyeballing.
