Measured porn stars??

[deleted978960]

placing the blue line a little closer to the bottom of the black button as sdp said to take depth into perspective would yield a slightly different results the dick would be 499 pix instead of 491 pix which would make his dick 7.77" if remote is 8.9" and 7.86" if remote is 9"

 

[deleted978960]

You're right, I still cant figure whats going on, since the 1st line from the side measurement here lines up to where the other measurement starts, and it goes about 0.5 inch further.

View attachment 909215

me too i think it's not 100% legit nbp but i would be called downplayer it's nice that someone else see this

 

[strivingforperfection]

placing the blue line a little closer to the bottom of the black button as sdp said to take depth into perspective would yield a slightly different results the dick would be 499 pix instead of 491 pix which would make his dick 7.77" if remote is 8.9" and 7.86" if remote is 9"

View attachment 909216

but the 2 start in the same place, or do you mean even the on top one is not 100 percent nbp?

 

[strivingforperfection]

it doesnt matter tho they start in the same place, and 1 measures more so what is going on?

 

[deleted978960]

it doesnt matter tho they start in the same place, and 1 measures more so what is going on?

we live in a 3d world so there is a lot of variables to be taken in such pictures as sdp said in his post the depth between the dick and remote which is created due to the remote being closer to the camera unlike the side measurement where both are on the same plane would change the measurement a bit people who believe in the barbie doll/lex steele measurements don't take this things into consideration
to sum up:closer objects to the camera will appear larger

 

[strivingforperfection]

Evidence they start in same place:

About 0.5 inch difference. That is why Im trying to come up with explanations and get confused with angles Because I can see that there is something wrong here but cant explain it. I mean, if anything the bottom one is further back and yet it ends 0.5 inch before the other one.

 

[strivingforperfection]

we live in a 3d world so there is a lot of variables to be taken in such pictures as sdp said in his post the depth between the dick and remote which is created due to the remote being closer to the camera unlike the side measurement where both are on the same plane would change the measurement a bit people who believe in the barbie doll/lex steele measurements don't take this things into consideration
to sum up:closer objects to the camera will appear larger

@sdp, @unknownuserx

OMG I just realized I wasnt wrong about the angle. Think of it this way, if the dick was on top of remote and at a diagonal , instead of straight, where it would end, further up on the remote, or lower? Lower, right? That is the same thing that is going on here. ( the difference is not very slight either. )

Try measuring yourself at diagonal, it will measure larger yes. However, this error is reversed the other way in relation to where it ENDS on the remote if at an angle to it!

 

[strivingforperfection]

It is confusing because if remote is like ruler, then angle cause dick to measure longer in relation to remote as it would with ruler.

However, if you think of dick as the thing that is at an angle (you could argue each is at an angle to eachother), then the same length dick will measure to a shorter point on the remote.

It seems like a riddle or paradox, back and forth.

Im not sure if this is correct, but im at least 50 percent sure! (like I said it seems like a paradox!)

But if it's not what's happening here, then what explains difference in 2 pictures?

 

[deleted978960]

Evidence they start in same place:

View attachment 909217 View attachment 909218

About 0.5 inch difference. That is why Im trying to come up with explanations and get confused with angles Because I can see that there is something wrong here but cant explain it. I mean, if anything the bottom one is further back and yet it ends 0.5 inch before the other one.

check my last post
just for fun i tried to analyze different picture(the one where the remote is on the side) now there is no depth between the remote and the dick,it yielded the exact same results as the last pic (4.99 pix for the dick)

 

[deleted978960]

But if it's not what's happening here, then what explains difference in 2 pictures?

the depth factor

 

[Snakebyte]

Good example how much camera settings and perspective actually matter. That's Strokes btw.

 

[strivingforperfection]

the depth factor

then how we can know whats right or use any pics to determine size? LOL. It is not even a slight difference, it is like 0.5 inch

 

[Lance Bass]

@RokiD when you do these measurements what is your margin of error?

 

[strivingforperfection]

we live in a 3d world so there is a lot of variables to be taken in such pictures as sdp said in his post the depth between the dick and remote which is created due to the remote being closer to the camera unlike the side measurement where both are on the same plane would change the measurement a bit people who believe in the barbie doll/lex steele measurements don't take this things into consideration
to sum up:closer objects to the camera will appear larger

@sdp @unkownuserx

But this shouldn't matter when 2 objects are basically in same place, and we are trying to determine the ratio of 1 in relation to the other! Then, it doesn't matter how small an object "looks" like in the Chris Strokes pic there. It's about the ratio of the 2, which can be clearly seen.

In the 2 pics, we have one very straight up against the ruler which yields the higher result, and the dodgy one with angles yielding the lower amount.

If the 2 are straight parallel to eachother it shouldnt matter about depth etc.

Do you not see what I'm saying?

 

[Ocine]

guys I asked a bunch of pornstars on twitter what their dick size. I told them to be honest and measure with this method. I even linked them this pic , do you guys think any of them will respond?

Propably not, but maybe some will do pictures starting at 3 or from side, or whatever for cheat.
but what they dont know, its their a bunch of dick expert here for analyse pict, who might try to find their lenght

 

[deleted978960]

then how we can know whats right or use any pics to determine size? LOL. It is not even a slight difference, it is like 0.5 inch

check post no.12263 i used the other picture where there is no depth factor and got 499/571 ratio which makes him 7.77" if the remote is indeed 8.9"

 

[strivingforperfection]

check post no.12263 i used the other picture where there is no depth factor and got 499/571 ratio which makes him 7.77" if the remote is indeed 8.9"

sorry i tagged u incorrectly but see post 12268. Again what is going wrong in that pic that shows 0.5 more than the other?

 

[Lance Bass]

@sdp @unkownuserx

But this shouldn't matter when 2 objects are basically in same place, and we are trying to determine the ratio of 1 in relation to the other! Then, it doesn't matter how small an object "looks" like in the Chris Strokes pic there. It's about the ratio of the 2, which can be clearly seen.

In the 2 pics, we have one very straight up against the ruler which yields the higher result, and the dodgy one with angles yielding the lower amount.

If the 2 are straight parallel to eachother it shouldnt matter about depth etc.

Do you not see what I'm saying?

So do you believe they have Wesley figured out with the 7.7 measurement?

I mean he's obviously not 9,but he's either high 7's or low 8's

 

[strivingforperfection]

So do you believe they have Wesley figured out with the 7.7 measurement?

I mean he's obviously not 9,but he's either high 7's or low 8's

No I think hes 8+

I still dont see what is wrong with the side one where the ruler and dick are both straight and clear to see. Even tho it is side, there is a line drawn and it is not more than nbp. The other one is dodgy

 

[soren10]

Any idea on how big Jordan ash is ?