You can use the search function at the top right side of the page. Type in the performers name and click search this thread only.
That's what I do to find performers measurements I'm interested in.
Measured porn stars??
- Thread starter _avg_
- Start date
That's what I do to find performers measurements I'm interested in.
FIODOR
Admired Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2016
- Posts
- 553
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 808
- Points
- 138
- Location
- Madrid (Spain)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Use the gap at the top of the page and search the wanted actor name and the word "measurement" , for example
FIODOR
Admired Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2016
- Posts
- 553
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 808
- Points
- 138
- Location
- Madrid (Spain)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Manuel 6,1 X 6
Nacho 7 X 6,3
James Deen 6,7 X 5,3
Mark Ashley 7,3 X 6,2
Mick Blue 7 X 5,6
Lex Steele 8,4 X 5,75
Ian Scott 7,1 X 6,2
Nacho and Lex Steele would be about the same in total volume then as Lex Steel comes to 22.101 cubic inches and Nacho comes to 22.109 cubic inches in total volume with FIODOR's above analysis.
Mark Ashley on the other hand would be bigger in total volume with 22.33 cubic inches.
Total volume is found by length multiplied by girth squared divided 4π
I agree with this..great work.
One final request would be Billy Glide. I think he's 6.5x6.5
With Manuel you are probably right about his size but he somehow looks thicker. Maybe he has a strange shape ...wide or something. He looks as thick as Vidal at times even though I know he isn't. I also think because he is uncircumcised and the foreskin doesn't retract it somehow makes his dick look longer. He looks closer to 7x6.5 at times although I agree he is closer to 6x6 like you said if you look closely.
Richard Mann was demonstrated at 8x6 earlier in this thread
https://www.youjizz.com/videos/daniella-double-penetration-with-nacho-and-lex-120452.html
Yeah judging by that, they look about equal in volume. Lex is close to an inch and a half longer but looks a bit more than half an inch thinner. Very comparable amounts of blood in their dicks.
You are not the first nor will be the last to advocate pseudoscientific methods in this thread. Hmmm so you are not interested in looking at measurements with ruler or tapes but doing your own photogrammetry bullshit. Well that is up to you. Some of your figures are massively downplaying certain pornstars though.
If a man has his dick measured with a tape on screen that is the closest thing you will get to knowing his true size in the real world. The photogrammetry nonsense you have made up is no different than that other hand quackery that was done on this thread. It is delusion pal. Snap out of this.
He has never been measured but it is possible he had 9 inches on a good day, but other users here who downplay will tell you he is 7,5
Lmao Boz is not 7.5 they are delusional.
If Richard Mann is 8 BOZ has to be 9 he's bigger than Richard for sure
Photogrammetry is not some pseudoscience though, it is an established science with known applications in architecture, engineering, mapping and the military.
This is probably the most reliable method we have, any other photo or video can be manipulated with the use of trickery such camera angles, lenses, magnification etc.
radius=C/2π
where:
C is the circumference of the circle
π is Pi, approximately 3.142
Volume = πr^2h of a Cylinder
Alternatively, I used these two formulas and got the same answers for the total volume of cubic inches for a Lex Steele, Nacho and Mark Ashley
Lex Steele 22.101 ci
Nacho 22.109 ci
Mark Ashley 22.330 ci
Do you get different results ?
where:
C is the circumference of the circle
π is Pi, approximately 3.142
Volume = πr^2h of a Cylinder
Alternatively, I used these two formulas and got the same answers for the total volume of cubic inches for a Lex Steele, Nacho and Mark Ashley
Lex Steele 22.101 ci
Nacho 22.109 ci
Mark Ashley 22.330 ci
Do you get different results ?
I guess I just misread. I thought you were using the diameter instead of the circumference, in which case it would have been length * pi * d²/4. That's why I wondered why you'd divide by pi. But using the circumference directly it's correct the way you do it.
he's not 7.5 but he's not 9 either. Above 8 but not above 8.5 I think.
Didn't mean to quote about Mann, I knew you meant Boz. He looks longer than Mann but not by that much imo. We know Mann is around 8x6
