7
15

[–] boggle247 7 points 15 points (+22|-7) ago 

I wouldn't be surprised if he diddles kids but this is just stupid. That measurement from eyes to an arbitrary point on his heat is useless. Also have to account for scaling depending on the camera zoom or his distance from the camera. Next is the angle of that leg. If it's not parallel with the camera lens (doesn't look like it) then it will appear shorter. Learn some fucking basic trig.

2
10

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

You'd have to get an extreme angle away from the camera to have any statistically significant change.

Plug some angles into this calculator and see how extreme you have to get.

This girl has a 0.0000573303% chance of being an adult. She's 5 sigma outside of normal height for any adult woman.

3
0

[–] Rotteuxx 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Meh... this is where Pizzagaters lose credibility for me even though they're fighting a good fight.

Extrapolating measurements from an object in the foreground of a picture and applying the same scale to an object at an angle from the background to the foreground isn't scientific by any means. That 4 7/8ths is wrong anyways, his eyes are looking upwards and his jaw is opened in the pic to the right compared to the one on the left.

All this is pure speculation and I wouldn't be surprised if it were a setup to say ''Hurr Durr, pizzagate voaters are dumb & believe anything''

Why the fuck are these pictures cropped anyways ? There's more to them than this meme shows us.

2
2

[–] markrod420 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

have to side with you. everything you just said about the leg angle is what went through my mind looking at the photo. especially since the numbers dont have to be that far off for the person to go from 6yr old girl to tiny philipino hooker. im not saying hes not a child fucker. but this photo analysis is not as solid as it presents itself to be.

also this was aparently at an asian place so again, tiny asian woman is not totally unbelievable

4
-2

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

This girl is 5 standard deviations outside the normal height for even a Vietnamese woman.

That gives a 0.0000573303% chance of her being an adult.

1
2

[–] Dfens [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Uh, you mean that measurement from his eyes to the bottom of his chin, right?

1
5

[–] boggle247 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I feel like a retard. I was looking at the graphic and not the measurement. Point still stands about scaling and the angle of the leg though.

1
4

[–] go1dfish 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

https://www.britannica.com/art/foreshortening

That leg is not parallel to the camera, you can't measure it that way.

0
0

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Thank you. In the oscar photo, both he and his statue are in relatively parallel relationship and flat to the plane of the photo lens. In the leg picture, the leg is no longer in this plane but is connected to a point further back in space, meaning that the perspective will make the leg appear shorter.

Not to mention, simply scaling the leg picture so that Quentin's nose-to-chin ratio is the same in both doesn't work. It might be possible for that to be marginally accurate if Quentin had been standing upright like in the first photo, but he is seated and his head is not at the same angle. Again, perspective. You are taking 2D measurements and extrapolating them to three dimensional objects depicted in 2D. Its tough to do in a precise way when you have totally unrelated photographs of that object in different positions.

This is fucking stupid.

I won't lie. That leg looks young, but it also doesn't appear like a six year old's AT ALL. If you think that leg/foot looks like a six year old limb, you're a fucking retard.

That doesn't negate the possibility it is still an underage teen. It very well could be. But when you start getting into that territory, then it could also be someone in their early 20's. When are women done growing? By 16 or 17 maybe? Meaning its possible that a 15 year old leg could look remarkably similar to a 22 year old leg assuming a woman has maintained the same lifestyle and eating habits. Let's try not to intentionally destroy our credibility here to stir some controversy.

2
5

[–] ilikeskittles 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Well, Tarantino is scum, but I'm not sure I go along with the formula here. But, it could be. One of my last girlfriends was 50 years old, she was all of 4'10". She could make 5' in a really high pair of heels.

3
7

[–] valk2 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

HS Sweetheart was 4 foot 11. Those legs are a kids man. That's a fucking child.

If that were an adult or even a 16 year old the legs would be more muscular, toned and defined. They aren't in that picture. I am willing to bet that is a kid.

0
1

[–] ilikeskittles 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Could be, just saying height is not a good metric for this.

3
1

[–] Dfens [S] 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

These charts indicate that there is a 90% chance the leg in that picture belongs to a boy or a girl between 5 and 9 years old. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set2/chart-08.pdf, https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set2/chart-07.pdf

4
0

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

There's a huge difference, in the probability of an adult being 4'10" like your girlfriend and bring 4'0" like the girl in the photo.

In fact the girl, if she were an adult, would be 5 standard deviations outside the norm.

Doing the math, that means this girl has a 0.0000573303% chance of being an adult.

0
1

[–] boggle247 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How are these pictures useful? We don't know if the zoom is the same (could effect scaling of those measurements) and whether his posture is the same (changes that eye-to-arbritrary-point on his chest measurement) and we don't know if the leg is parallel to the camera. If it's not parallel then it will appear shorter.

My point is, statistics are useless if the data is incorrect/inaccurate

Edit: nvm about the eyes to chest measurement. I see that it's actually to his chin. Still not really trustworthy because of scaling and zoom. Something else I considered is you don't know the difference in depth from the camera of the Oscar and his face. That will throw it off too. Really hard to judge these things from pictures. Just look at the dipshits who take pictures of their fish they catch where they hold it 6in from the camera at full arms length.

0
0

[–] markrod420 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

the person is undoubtedly small. however how far off do these measurements need to be for the person to go from 4' to 4'10"? probably not THAT much. and if shes 4'10 then it drastically alters the odds that we can correctly guess her age as you have pointed out. there are too many unknown variables in the angles, lenses, and distances of these photos to say with confidence that that is a child.

it may well be a child. im not saying its not. im saying this photo constitutes decent evidence, but poor proof.

2
-1

[–] phi_lemon 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

50 years old, she was all of 4'10"

I'm sorry, but that's a fucking goblin. Eternal lolis are 2D exclusive.

0
2

[–] ilikeskittles 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

She is a hot little spinner.

0
2

[–] MaFishTacosDaBombBro 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

First off, the woman's leg is jutting out at an angle to Tarantino's face, so instead of 10", it may be closer to 12" or 15" to account for the lost length due to the 2D projection.

Also, a child's leg and foot wouldn't look as mature as this females leg. I think a child's leg would have more fat, like a baby, and wouldn't have as many lines on the foot, showing age. Just looking at the development of the foot, I can't see this on a child as young as 6 years old.

0
2

[–] Tom_Spanx 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Where did the molestation pics come from?

1
0

[–] Dfens [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Good question. TMZ: http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/26/quentin-sucks-toes/. They claim the woman is Asian.

Edit: Oops, better quote what they say:

TMZ spotted the director sucking the nail polish off some random woman's foot at Empress sushi joint on the Sunset Strip recently. After the "meal" and a few drinks, Q posed for pictures and hopefully downed some Scope.

1
1

[–] Uncle_Slob 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

That is not the foot of a child. The foot has twenty years of wear.

0
0

[–] Dfens [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

@liftwizard This had been posted by @burqafart previously and I resurrected it here in v/Pizzagayte. As you can see, it got spammed big time. Seems like it must be significant to get this much crap.

0
1

[–] BurqaFart 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you. The ruler is misleading, but still looks like a kid's leg to me.

0
0

[–] Dfens [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, I totally agree. The chances of it being an adult's leg are infinitesimally small. It's even more disgusting that the left would collude to protect a child rapist. It seems liberalism takes on more an more attributes of a religion than those of a political movement.

1
0

[–] MinorLeakage 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

This is really dumb. He probably is a pedophile, but this retard-level mathematics is just embarrassing. This is as bad as those fucking NASA-debunking photos that idiot has been posting.

2
0

[–] piratse 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

This might be the dumbest thing I have seen on voat in a while. My GF has smaller legs than her niece who is 14. My cousin was 5'11" at 15. So what? What retard uses this as proof?

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)