This shared body obviously lacks a certain....size, shall we say.
to be continued.
The $10,000 10-inch challenge
- Thread starter drambone2001
- Start date
to be continued.
4 years. That's how old this topic is. This one topic has made a pretty good impact on size claims on the internet. Lots of people call out claims of 10+ inches and refer to this contest. Of course there still are plenty of people still making claims and others believing them but I'm really impressed with the progress this has brought on.
Here's something I found digging through my post history. The comment that sparked this whole topic!
![Screenshot_20220210-155647_Chrome.jpg]( "Screenshot_20220210-155647_Chrome.jpg")
Here's something I found digging through my post history. The comment that sparked this whole topic!
You were there from the beginning too lol
I’m a new comer compared to you guys. 4 years and not one…single…photo or video of a verifiable 10 inch penis. For $10k. We have heard virtually every excuse under the Sun. We have seen fakes. We have seen comparisons with everything BUT a ruler. In 4 years not one person has come up with a real authentic, indisputable 10 inch cock. We have had heated arguments with people that still believe because they have seen them themselves! Even with an added $10k finder’s fee we still haven’t seen anything close.
I still think one exists but I think they are so incredibly rare that we may never see one here. I think more likely people have seen true 8 or 8.5 inch dicks and just assumed they were 10. In the heat of battle our perception isn't always that accurate and unless you are incredibly gifted with eye measuring something within a fraction of an inch, it would be understandable to misjudge an inch or more.
I also think having all the John Holmes guys in the eight inch range being "well known as 10+ inches" as a reference for what one looks like doesn't help much there either.
Absolutely. The porn stars aren’t honest about it so that complicates things. I would love to see someone come on here with an unaltered video measuring a 10 inch dick. I’d love to see one but I’m not holding my breath.I also think having all the John Holmes guys in the eight inch range being "well known as 10+ inches" as a reference for what one looks like doesn't help much there either.
shiet I was just looking around and realized there are so many that are like 9 or insanely close
like I'm not saying necessarily but I run into like a frigging hundred pics like mrhuge1n, softon, nothernlad, onlyfans type stuff, monsters website, etc. I've seen like a frigging billion lol (exaggeration but you kwim) that aren't fake. Way more than people think if you've seen as many pics and videos as me lol (basically almost all of them). Don't even try to pull the card that they're probably fake this that I've factored that all in.
Now don't use this against me if this one is. But is this real? Is that a distortion going on above the hand?
like I'm not saying necessarily but I run into like a frigging hundred pics like mrhuge1n, softon, nothernlad, onlyfans type stuff, monsters website, etc. I've seen like a frigging billion lol (exaggeration but you kwim) that aren't fake. Way more than people think if you've seen as many pics and videos as me lol (basically almost all of them). Don't even try to pull the card that they're probably fake this that I've factored that all in.
Now don't use this against me if this one is. But is this real? Is that a distortion going on above the hand?
Attachments
If you can't tell, your previous observations and claims becomes suspect. I'm not saying that to be mean but if someone is saying they have seen plenty of pictures of Bigfoot but then show a pic and admit they are not able to tell if it was faked or not and are bad at being able to spot fakes, why would they still be credible?
We've explained a lot of why the others looks so huge. Because they are. Absolute monsters. Fucking massive dicks everyone would love to see. It's just that if you put a ruler on them and measured the correct way, it would "only be 9 inches or so". As if 9 inches isn't fucking monstrously huge.
But I can already tell by your tone and previous post this may be a futile attempt at conversing. Again, not trying to be mean or rude. Just making observation. Those who are open wouldn't make statements as you did in your first post.
Observation and deduction has been proven correct. Have a good one dude.
You know it's going to be a rough ride when mrhuge1n is the first name thrown in as an example. At least Falcon wasn't in there.
Regarding the picture though- Yes, the shaft from above the thumb, up to or past the circumcision scar looks more blurry than the rest and may have been digitally stretched.
Regarding the picture though- Yes, the shaft from above the thumb, up to or past the circumcision scar looks more blurry than the rest and may have been digitally stretched.
Definitely has been. Look across the photo horizontally and you'll see the entire thing has been stretched.You know it's going to be a rough ride when mrhuge1n is the first name thrown in as an example. At least Falcon wasn't in there.
Regarding the picture though- Yes, the shaft from above the thumb, up to or past the circumcision scar looks more blurry than the rest and may have been digitally stretched.
Indeed, when he uses the biggest fraud of LPSG as his first example, you already know it's utter nonsense.You know it's going to be a rough ride when mrhuge1n is the first name thrown in as an example. At least Falcon wasn't in there.
Regarding the picture though- Yes, the shaft from above the thumb, up to or past the circumcision scar looks more blurry than the rest and may have been digitally stretched.
It's not even difficult to see the distortion on the cock and the blanket.
Even if it was real and unaltered, that still isn't a 9 inch cock anyway.
- Narz,
Looks like a legit 10 incher, right?
![JkgPiEe2_o.jpg]( "JkgPiEe2_o.jpg")
![JkgPiEe2_o.jpg]()
Well let me use this as an example to teach you about Error Level Analysis: Forensically, free online photo forensics tools
Upload the pic, go down to JPEG Analysis and note what Quality it has. Go to Error Level Analysis and enter that value. Now you will get something like this:
![APQg8SL.png]()
With a legitimate picture you wouldn't get any of those yellow and blue markings over the picture. I tried it with several pictures I took and they just looked dark, but with some that I warped I got those artifacts. These show that something has been done, as the Jpeg Quality is different in those places as it would be for a legitimate picture.
Additionaly you can also check the EXIF data (if it hasn't been scrubbed) to see if it has been edited in Photoshop
![YFNOYBE.png]()
There's also some other tests that can be used, so whenever you expect something to be photoshopped give it a try.
Well let me use this as an example to teach you about Error Level Analysis: Forensically, free online photo forensics tools
Upload the pic, go down to JPEG Analysis and note what Quality it has. Go to Error Level Analysis and enter that value. Now you will get something like this:
With a legitimate picture you wouldn't get any of those yellow and blue markings over the picture. I tried it with several pictures I took and they just looked dark, but with some that I warped I got those artifacts. These show that something has been done, as the Jpeg Quality is different in those places as it would be for a legitimate picture.
Additionaly you can also check the EXIF data (if it hasn't been scrubbed) to see if it has been edited in Photoshop
There's also some other tests that can be used, so whenever you expect something to be photoshopped give it a try.
Nice site there. Fun to mess around with it. But yeah it's pretty obvious that pic was altered but here's how it looks on that analysis site when I was messing around with it.
![Screenshot_20220216-114407_Chrome.jpg]( "Screenshot_20220216-114407_Chrome.jpg")
Clear bar horizontally where it was stretched digitally.
Clear bar horizontally where it was stretched digitally.
Narz and Cum_is_Great - Are you guys changing anything from the defaults on that analysis site (other than the quality value it gives back)? My output looks quite different, and I'm pretty sure I did everything correctly.
-Thanks
-Thanks
Yes. I was messing with the values doing all sorts of settings. I can't remember what I had it at exactly for that pic. I think I upped the jpeg quality and error level to about half?
Similar threads
