Hopefully the definitive mandingo length analysis

[phenomenon]

it doesn't correlate to intelligence, just to the likelihood that the OP created an alternate account to agree with himself.

Just ignore eggs_n_cheese. He's had several accounts here already, likely been banned a few times. And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all that sdp registered aliases to comment in here belligerently.

 

[phenomenon]

Ok, keep thinking that lmao.

This little niche-cult of over-exaggerator trolls will come up with any crazy conspiracy, but just won't acknowledge what's right in from of them. For what reason, who knows.

"Niche cult" ? THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HERE BELIEVE THIS THREAD AND YOUR BIAS IS BULLSHIT

YOU ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LONELY NICHE CULT WITHIN AN ALREADY NICHE COMMUNITY

 

[916416]

This is still a thing?

 

[sdp]

The validity of this analysis doesn't rely on anybody "agreeing with me" but on nobody being able to prove it invalid using rational arguments.

-------------------------

Pic 149a

My hand: 65mm
Her hand: 52.9mm, 68px
Penis: 306px, 238.1mm (9.37")

Average of results so far: 8.69"

 

[sdp]

Pic 150a

My hand: 64mm
Her hand: 52.0mm, 67px
Penis: 305px, 236.7mm (9.32")

Average of results so far: 8.69"

 

[bustedm]

Pic 150a

My hand: 64mm
Her hand: 52.0mm, 67px
Penis: 305px, 236.7mm (9.32")

Average of results so far: 8.69"

View attachment 544364

What is "67px" supposed to mean?

 

[Snakebyte]

The validity of this analysis doesn't rely on anybody "agreeing with me" but on nobody being able to prove it invalid using rational arguments.

To be fair you had some data in the 7.x inches range. That actually is a pretty valid argument that it's not working that well imho.

 

[sdp]

What is "67px" supposed to mean?

67 pixels, in this case the distance from the edge of her ring finger to the edge of her index finger, measured along the middle of the top of the shaft.

To be fair you had some data in the 7.x inches range. That actually is a pretty valid argument that it's not working that well imho.

Here we go again... all right, so I have 5 results under 20.5cm and they are not believable. But I also have 6 results over 23.5cm that aren't much more believable. Everything else being equal, in order to get 20.5cm or 23.5cm results instead of the 22cm average, the hands would only need to be 5mm bigger or smaller than the 74mm average, not a big difference.

Those extremes have no significance other than they are expected, since it is expected that not all girls have average hand size.
What is significant is that the current set of results has a standard deviation of only 1/3", not so bad IMO and it will get smaller.

----------------------

Pic 151a

My hand: 79mm
Her hand: 64.2mm, 82px
Penis: 299px, 234.1mm (9.22")

Average of results so far: 8.70"

 

[Snakebyte]

Here we go again... all right, so I have 5 results under 20.5cm and they are not believable. But I also have 6 results over 23.5cm that aren't much more believable. Everything else being equal, in order to get 20.5cm or 23.5cm results instead of the 22cm average, the hands would only need to be 5mm bigger or smaller than the 74mm average, not a big difference.

Those extremes have no significance other than they are expected, since it is expected that not all girls have average hand size.
What is significant is that the current set of results has a standard deviation of only 1/3", not so bad IMO and it will get smaller.

That's based on assumptions though. You can't rule out any confounding variables that distort your results. I guess the problem is that you actually can't proof that your method is legit. So you may have to live with it that people doubt your data.
You lost me after your analysis of Julio to be honest.

 

[bustedm]

67 pixels, in this case the distance from the edge of her ring finger to the edge of her index finger, measured along the middle of the top of the shaft.

So in all of your posts when you say "Her hand:", what you really mean is "a random number of fingers". Not very scientific, but your hobby is your business, I suppose.

 

[sdp]

That's based on assumptions though ... you actually can't proof that your method is legit.

You can test it, anyone can. Take a pic of your dick with your wife/gf's hand on it, making sure that the whole dick is at about an even distance from the camera and that the hand isn't at either end of the dick. Measure your dick (non bone pressed in a straight line), measure her hand breadth, measure your hand breadth, put your hand in the same position as hers on a graduated tp roll or whatever, and see how wide your hand appears on the roll (look with one eye closed without moving your head, from about the same distance as the camera when you took the pic) at the point where it's right along the middle of the top of the shaft in the pic, then count the pixels and do the math. If the result is the same as your actual length then the method is legit.

So you may have to live with it that people doubt your data

I'd rather they doubt it than they blindly accept it. And again, all the info is right there for anyone willing to actually test its validity.

You lost me after your analysis of Julio to be honest.

The Julio thing was only an example of what could and couldn't be done in such estimations regarding angles and perspective, it was not meant as an actual estimation and couldn't have been as we don't know the size of the girl's hand.

So in all of your posts when you say "Her hand:", what you really mean is "a random number of fingers". Not very scientific

Yes but it's not a random number of fingers, for each pic I choose what part of the hand is best suited, based on its configuration in relation to the middle of the top of the shaft and on the possibility of accurately reproducing the exact position. If for instance the first three fingers touch but the pinky is at a distance or doesn't cross the middle of the top of the shaft then I don't include it. Anyone who wants to check the measurements and calculations can easily tell what part of the hand I used from the pixel count I give, so I don't see what's unscientific about this.

---------------------------

Pic 152a

My hand: 58mm
Her hand: 47.2mm, 60px
Penis: 300px, 236.0mm (9.29")

Average of results so far: 8.70"

 

[sdp]

Pic 153a

My hand: 63mm
Her hand: 51.2mm, 65px
Penis: 301px, 237.1mm (9.33")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[sdp]

Pic 154a

My hand: 63mm
Her hand: 51.2mm, 58px
Penis: 264px, 233.0mm (9.17")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[sdp]

Pic 155a

My hand: 62mm
Her hand: 50.4mm, 58px
Penis: 266px, 231.1mm (9.10")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[blobby69]

Pic 153a

My hand: 63mm
Her hand: 51.2mm, 65px
Penis: 301px, 237.1mm (9.33")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

View attachment 545532

I don't think I could disagree with 8.71 being close to his actual size - The reason for this lies with one thing - the belly button.
As he's around 5ft 8 I'd put his belly button at 7". So it's whatever it goes past his belly button + 7 inches. 1.7" is probably close, maybe even slightly less.

Out of interest, who is the girl?

 

[sdp]

Out of interest, who is the girl?

Jessie Volt.

-----------------------

Pic 156a

My hand: 76mm
Her hand: 61.8mm, 77px
Penis: 276px, 221.5mm (8.72")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[sdp]

Pic 157a

My hand: 41mm
Her hand: 33.3mm, 55px
Penis: 368px, 222.8mm (8.77")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[sdp]

Pic 158a

My hand: 54mm
Her hand: 43.9mm, 72px
Penis: 365px, 222.5mm (8.76")

Average of results so far: 8.71"

 

[sdp]

Pic 159a

My hand: 85mm
Her hand: 69.1mm, 77px
Penis: 259px, 232.4mm (9.15")

Average of results so far: 8.72"

 

[sdp]

Pic 160a

My hand: 85mm
Her hand: 69.1mm, 77px
Penis: 258px, 231.5mm (9.11")

Average of results so far: 8.72"