"Cindy and Joe" Message Archive

Message Archive
home page

Message category
index:
Anal fisting
Attitudes & emotions
Cindy-specific 1999
Cindy-specific 2000
Cindy-specific 2001
Cindy-specific 2002
Cindy-specific 2003
Cindy-specific 2004
Cindy-specific 2005
Cindy-specific 2006
Female ejeculation
Finding a partner
Funny stuff
Giving birth
Group-specific 1999
Group-specific 2000
Group-specific 2001
Group-specific 2002
Group-specific 2003
Group-specific 2004
Group-specific 2005
Group-specific 2006
Health concerns
Kegel exercises
Lubricants
Max. vagina size
Personal experiences
Pics and videos
Professional ladies
Sex toys & objects
Vaginal fisting info

Message: Pic Post: Who is this woman

From: jman99_128 Sent: 25 May 2005 Message 1 of 6

Love the gaping open pussy pix posted by Ottomun in the album called : Who is this woman.

He asked in his post: could this be for real? Good question, some look real and some look less real. Just curious why she has pussy hair in 6 pix and no hair in 3 of them?

Would love to know where these pix were posted on the net, i.e, what site url.

Thanks, Jman

From: Jimm Sent: 25 May 2005 Message 2 of 6

Unfortunately, the large gaper pictures are faked. Look at gprs23 picture for example and notice that if you were to insert fingers, that if you strongly pulled 3 fingers upward, to make your fingers very close to the underedge of her pubis bone, your fingers would be very close to the upper edge of the mons pubis.. There would be no room anatomically for there to be any bone under that region and she would not have any pubic bone. Because she must have a pubic bone, then the pictures have to be fakes. You will always find that the uppermost front side of the vaginal opening is a lot lower than you imagine it to be due to the width of the pubis bone. I have noticed that those who fake pictures seldom understand that anatomical fact.

From: WeirdLabs1 Sent: 26 May 2005 Message 3 of 6

The pics are fake.

It's made with Photoshop by a user om www.surfoo.com, a site dedicaded to fisting and such..

/WeirdLabs

From: Jimm Sent: 26 May 2005 Message 4 of 6

Glad you agree, as just looking at the anatomy they had to be fake, but you seem to confirm my opinion on the basis of the pixels. LOL Thanks Anything that is proven fake might be interesting, but this Group usually is concerned with what is actual and real.

Another problelm when searching for "size reality", is perspective in photos, as I usually look for something that is same distance from the camera to compare sizes and openings, as close things are magnified and far things look smaller.

I like to be able to use a linear ratio of screen measures ("screen opening width" divided by a "known screen width" and multiplying that ratio times the "actual know width"). This method is used to get an accurate measure in many fields of science, projective geometry, and art. If the camera distance is not exactly the same, an estimate of error can often be made.. Sometimes it is a more accurate method than direct measurement methods, as soft objects may change shape during insertions, or direct measures are hard to obtain.

I have some OB books and have seen pictures of pelvimeters that do not even rely on using the fist + fingers method to get the pinbone and other pelvic opening distances. Those pelvimeters are made for measuring the inside of openings as opposed to the outside type pelvimeters. You do not see them much in modern books as C Sections are less dangerous and most OB doctors today rely on "rough estimates" instead of accurate measure to do surgery because of small pelvic openings.

From: billnash Sent: 10 June 2005 Message 5 of 6

HI
Yeah was wondering if those were real also. Some do in fact look real.

From: Jimm Sent: 11 June 2005 Message 6 of 6

Reality in almost anything is very difficult to determine. In looking at pictures, one of the first things I look for is where things in the foreground of the picture are magnified. Also, if the picture is morphed, certain linear things are non-linear... like fingers and other things look crooked or may be made wider or more narrow by the morphing.

If honest pictures are made where easy to see distances (like where bone openings have fingers pressing the skin against the insides of a bone opening) are combined with something of known measure (like a known hand width) and further those two visible things are at a similar distance from the camera, then the "proportion-ratio" method can often be more accurate than any other method. Otherwise you have to try to allow for perspective distortion.

Here the measure is simple math. The ratio of the "Measured Screen Viewed Opening Distance" divided by the "Measured Screen Viewed Actual Known Distance" is first calculated. This ratio is then multiplied by the "Actual Known Distance" to give a very accurate "Actual Opening Distance" ... (MSVOD / MSVAKD) X (AKD) = (AOD) This method works because the ratio found is non-dimensional (as division makes whatever your dimensions of inches or centimeters that you measure on the screen both cancel out) and when multiplied by the dimension (inches, cm, etc.) of the known actual measure, then that gives the actual dimensional opening distance. All you need is a ruler to measure the distances on the screen plus knowing something of actual know measure in the picture at about the same camera distance and plane as the opening.

Where we get fooled is where someone sticks a straight pen in the rear of an elephant and the head of the pin looks almost as big as the elephant because the camera is very very close to the head of the pin.

However the above method is a very good method if used "honestly" (no morphing and things measured are at the same distance from the camera).