french monstercock

flame boy

Account Disabled
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Posts
3,189
Media
0
Likes
197
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
It's not real, the guy has done something quite clever however. Rather than just using the same old photo manipulation computer sourcery (ie Photoshop) he has used two pictures. One is of his body from a distance and the other is a close up photo of a (maybe his, but certainly someones) cock. He has blended the two together in order to make it appear like its a really big dick. Sneaky stuff, but sadly not real.
 

dongalong

Mythical Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
16,288
Media
0
Likes
62,545
Points
418
Location
France
Gender
Male
I analysed the pics in Photoshop and they are extremely well done if they have been modified. The enlargement was probably less than 10% because it looks very convincing.

I think that it is possible the photos were unmodified, the frontal pics are taken from a very flattering angle but even so, it doesn't look more than 10" long, however the girth is huge in every picture.
 

Thicckie

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Posts
217
Media
0
Likes
2,316
Points
598
Location
Brooklyn (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
if it's fake then it's really well done... looks legit to me. It's definitely a larger than average cock but it's not so big as to be automatically fake. the dude is super slim, it's not impossible for a fat 9-10 incher to look that large relative to a frame that size.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,028
Media
29
Likes
7,893
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I suppose it depends on which photos you are looking at. I looked initially only at this one, which seems to me blatantly fake, as does this one. The proportions and textures don't make sense to my eye, and you can see some funny business in each photo at the base of the cock. On the other hand, in this one and this one, the dick doesn't look impossibly disproportionate, though you can still see the signs of alteration in the image at the base of the penis in the second one. The first of those two seems to me the most believable of the lot, but I still think that it is altered: if you look at the upper boundary of the cock near the base, there is an odd line.
 

D_ExJagSack

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
150
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
103
I suppose it depends on which photos you are looking at. I looked initially only at this one, which seems to me blatantly fake, as does this one. The proportions and textures don't make sense to my eye, and you can see some funny business in each photo at the base of the cock. On the other hand, in this one and this one, the dick doesn't look impossibly disproportionate, though you can still see the signs of alteration in the image at the base of the penis in the second one. The first of those two seems to me the most believable of the lot, but I still think that it is altered: if you look at the upper boundary of the cock near the base, there is an odd line.

yup calboner is right on the fake pic.. i've got a good eye for this shit and if it was a genuine photograph and no modifications i.e (photoshop) the base of his cock wouldnt blur out of focus at that distance - if u look carefully..

that happens when u enlarge a fixed photo unless it is a vector image - which it is not.
 

validi

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Posts
603
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
103
Location
at my home
Sexuality
Unsure