The problem is @unknownuserx and others do this thing where they make some good points but ignore anything to the contrary. It is like a defense or prosecution lawyer. You are acting like it is your job to prove the lowest possible number. You stay within the facts to an extent and do a good job of debunking ridiculous 10 inch or 7+ girth claims but over time it is obvious that you are trying to get the lowest possible figure you can without obviously fabricating. So you are not as bad as @plas95 who is an idiot who just makes stuff up. But you chip off little bits here and there, start a bit past where most would etc etc and act like anyone who disagrees isnt going by facts and is like Goldzilla or ridiculous people who claim huge sizes like 10+. And then it is tedious to prove you wrong to be honest because it ends in an argument back and forth over minor points. But it really does seem you want to take the lowest possible figure you reasonably think you can. Again like the defense lawyer analogy, you are operating somewhat within facts like a lawyer but you are definitely trying to prove a conclusion! Instead of just get to the truth. You ALWAYS find a way to go with lowest possible estimate. Look how you said Manuel could be 6 to 6.25 now you say under 6 he doesnt look impressive and you cant estimate his girth. Only once it became an issue and you realized you skimmed some off his length you now want to play the "who knows he doesnt look impressive in some shows one of his dildos says 6x5.5 " game.
Measured porn stars??
- Thread starter _avg_
- Start date
What you make of this?
Don't they in medical studies start the measurement where the skin from the stomach meets exactly the top of the penis shaft?
You seem to be starting it slightly before, however, Rokis is much more guilty of this though.
![upload_2017-12-17_13-44-42-png.911278]()
Don't they in medical studies start the measurement where the skin from the stomach meets exactly the top of the penis shaft?
You seem to be starting it slightly before, however, Rokis is much more guilty of this though.
part of his thumb is hidden for chrissakes and how do u know thats at the base its just on the underside of the tape to hold it in place!
NBP would start at very close to where the tape starts to be honest, that is where a ruler would go naturally without forcing down on it. I agree that pic of Criss is not good and overshoots him because of soft tape but that is why it is tedious to argue with you because you will obfuscate and make it about Criss when the point is if you start at bs places there, even in an overall bogus measurement, you obviously are likely to/have done in it other more legit measurement places and for your studies. But again it is tedious to prove you wrong 1 by 1 and argue back and forth but if we dont do it I guess we are "just going by what it looks like" whereas you have "evidence"
What you make of this?
Don't they in medical studies start the measurement where the skin from the stomach meets exactly the top of the penis shaft?
You seem to be starting it slightly before, however, Rokis is much more guilty of this though.
![upload_2017-12-17_13-44-42-png.911278]()
Agreed that is where NBP should be, where stomach skin meets pubic skin. BP would be to force down on that which could add 0.5 inch or more. These guys act like NBP is BP and would start NBP on the left side of her 2nd finger lol.
the penis in this picture is angled if you checked page no.4 of the thread i discarded this pic and others similar this is where i usually start, don't cherry pick some pics that i decided to discard
It is impossible to cheat on the above pics however, if you started up the shaft on the above pics it would be clearly visible that there was penile shaft not included within the measuring lines.the penis in this picture is angled if you checked page no.4 of the thread i discarded this pic and others similar this is where i usually start, don't cherry pick some pics that i decided to discard
![upload_2017-12-17_1-44-54-png.910916]()
![upload_2017-12-17_0-23-2-png.910852]()
the penis in this picture is angled if you checked page no.4 of the thread i discarded this pic and others similar this is where i usually start, don't cherry pick some pics that i decided to discard
![upload_2017-12-17_1-44-54-png.910916]()
![upload_2017-12-17_0-23-2-png.910852]()
This method is very variable...the averaging over several pics makes sense but then you need someone who is really accurate and isnt trying to get the lowest possible figure and will take the exact average female hand not less or more over 100s of pics and not draw lines even slightly biased toward robbing size. A difference of even 0.1 inch from true hand width, or glans length, or where the NBP starts could make a 0.5 inch overall difference or more in dick size guess when extrapolated and combined with other errors (if more than 1 of these is present.)
Also when a dick is angled up it robs some length. I understand that the point is to have the measuring device parallel to the dick which ever way it is pointing, but really only near parallel pic should be used. think it is because the penis is like a lever the ligs retract when your dick is pointing up. Try measuring yourself with your dick pointing up. You should only use pics near parallel....
i do and i said i eliminated all pics that were angled
lol no it won't make 0.5" overall i redid the whole study and eliminated 17 pix and the average increased by only 0.1"
i use the average 7.4 cm hand width in all pics
This measurement probably shouldn't start at 2.5 as well in my opinion. That isn't where the penis shaft meets the pubic skin.it starts at 2.5 and ends at 18.5 that's 16 cm
![vlcsnap-2017-12-14-06h21m32s267-png.908079]()
that's striving's original guess btw so i am not downplaying
Another error I notice commonly in these extapolations is adding on average glans size guesses to larger than average dicks. Or sometimes even below average. Like they will just add 1 inch for glans or at best the 1.38 average when dicks larger than 6 likely have larger glanses too. To be fair to unkownuserx he did say he thought Manuels glans was 1.56 or something before but again even a slight variation here makes a big difference. And if there is an extra 0.2 at the base liek you and me think that becomes 0.4 or more extrapolated, same with hand width underestimated by 0.1 and then doubled.
I think you and I agree Manuel is around 6.5 NBP and 7BPx somewhere over 6 and under 6.25 girth.
why didn't you quote the whole postit starts at 2.5 and ends at 18.5 that's 16 cm
![vlcsnap-2017-12-14-06h21m32s267-png.908079]()
that's striving's original guess btw so i am not downplaying
Yeah, I agree with that estimate for Manuel.
i got tired
i never used the glans length in any of my pics i even said it's not accurate a few pages agothis is the problem, you didnt address my other post where i compare you to defense lawyer arguing for 1 side, not trying to get to truth. You will just argue point for point back and forth. But you subtly are deceitful. You make statements that cant really be refuted but you dont give enough information and draw erroneous conclusions we are just supposed to accept if we cant PROVE you wrong.
For example the bold, WHICH 17 did you eliminate and how did you pick them. If you just redid it and got 0.1 diff from using your same general method with another set, that is not my point at all. I'm not talking about natural variation from teh same person using the same exact methods with the same approach. I mean several different people could tend to start at different places etc. We dont think you are starting where NBP should start. A difference of 0.1/0.2 inches there and an underestimating of glans by a bit could make a 0.4 inch difference. Also even if you use hands width some girls could have very closed hands or more open, there is room for variability and since you dont start NBP in proper place, why should we think you wont try to skim the most possible off you can get away with? As I said even tiny differences extrapolated can make near 0.5 inch difference.
i got tired
how can you guess his size then??????
by using the female hands as a reference not his glans
you are making judgments without even bothering to check the thread i specified which pics i eliminated exactly in my thread and listed the reason for each, just go and check the thread for god's sake to understand what method i used before attacking me and my methods
why not just explain, it is too tedious to go back and forth, just explain it here. And anyway 0.1 inch difference is so low like you said so obviously you didnt eliminate anything that made a difference.
So you are using hands as a reference then extrapolating rest from pixel counting?
when i first posted my work here some users said i am hijacking the thread and i should start my own and it was a small difference because when you work over a large sample a few pic won't shift the average by much some pics included shows him to be over 7" nbp for example if i eliminated all this pics the average would go down by only 0.04" or if i eliminated all the pics that shows him under 5.75" the average will increase by only 0.07"
the pixels work is based upon hands you measure how many pixels is his dick and how many pixels is the female hand so you get a ratio which you multiply by the actual female hand size
1. Yes but that is about the pics themselves not your analysis of them and discarding certain ones which wasnt my point. I understand there are many and they average out and removing a few outliers wont change the overall average that much. My point is if your general technique is getting an extrapolated error of 0.4 inches (by 0.1 less NBP start than we would, or hand positioning etc) that would apply to each and every pic you analyze NOT about the outlier pics themselves.
2. There is a total extrapolation error likely with the pixels because everything is just multiplied. So if your measurement of her hand is off 0.1 (i know you said you used average but you also have to take into account open or close position of hands it is not precise) or if NBP starts 0.1 further down from where you started, then you multiply it by the ratio of pixels rati you are multiplying that error by like between 2 and 3. For example you guess her hand at 2.9 and its really 3 because her hand is spread out a bit more than how theyd o it in study. That 0.1 error becomes close to 0.3 over a whole dick. Same with where NBP should start etc....
