What does a 320 lb woman look like?

[PhotoEgor 0]

The question is, What does a 320 pound woman look like?

Now, before you look at her pictures, get a mental image of what you think a woman who weighs 320 looks like.... Got it? Ready?

The question is, What does a 320 pound woman look like?

Now, before you look at her pictures, get a mental image of what you think a woman who weighs 320 looks like.... Got it? Ready?Not what you were expecting, was it??!! The tallest and biggest woman in the world lives in Holland She is 7'4" and weighs 320

What a relief; Now we ALL know we aren't overweight, just too short!

:mad2:

gk

[Pix 4]

Sorry sweety, but snopes says otherwise ....

Cute story though ... but ....

[mbanja 1]

Woah! I got a hundred bucks says that her boobs make up at least a hundred of those lbs!!!

[ReadySteadyGo 8]

I know thats right.

[Wheetsin 714]

I agree with the general idea. I always said I wasn't fat, I was just too short. I should have been like 8'2 for my weight.

As for the pic, the one of the two women isn't even forced perspective, it's a half-assed Photoshop job. It's terribly obvious if you know what you're looking for - sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Gone4Now 4]

I agree with the general idea. I always said I wasn't fat, I was just too short. I should have been like 8'2 for my weight.

As for the pic, the one of the two women isn't even forced perspective, it's a half-assed Photoshop job. It's terribly obvious if you know what you're looking for - sticks out like a sore thumb.

Do tell? I admit that I didn't think it was real - I mean, c'mon! I had trouble finding fashionable clothes and shoes and I'm normal height! I'm sure those stilettos don't come in a size 20 - But what gives the picture away? I'm no good at picking that kind of stuff out. :biggrin:

[Pix 4]

Wheetsin those aren't photo chopped. Those are actual pictures, but (always a but) she is posed with shorter then average people. AND she is wearing insanely tall shoes. She is actually 6'5" or something like that. Check out the link to snopes I listed above and you will see.

[Wheetsin 714]

Then Snopes needs a graphic artist on board, because there are parts of her that don't even match/align with parts of the background. But doesn't matter, it's fake either way.

[Wheetsin 714]

Gloucester - look at her left leg, starting at the ankle. Move up to where you see the shadow of something behind them. There's a very rough "break" in the shadow that doesn't line up with any of the cracks on the sidewalk that would cause a break similar to that. You can see what might be "natural crack breaks" directly below that, but that wouldn't carry up to where this break occurs. The sidewalk would angle (perspective) as it went back, so if you were seeing a break due to a sidewalk crack, it would be a lot closer to her legf, if not behind it.

Plus, starting at that break, you'll notice there's a fairly visible "line" going up from exactly where the break occurs. Between her leg and the line it's a much brighter background, even when there should be dark background. This is a "giveaway" of something being superimposed. The manipulator will often blur/lighten/darken the cut out area to try and help it blend in with the background.

Is this evidence you'd want to take to court? Of course not. But I've been dealing with things like photo manipulation since 1993, and my eye says fake on this one.

Compare her leg to the other girl's leg. See how the other girl's leg has a dark background when there should be one? And another thing - the other girl has a brighter area around her calf (possibly just reflection), but it follows the countour of her leg - the tall girl's does not, it goes straight despite her leg curving.

[Pix 4]

heheh Wheetsin you have good eyes, the story behind that picture is it was taken at the same time BUT (gotta hate that word) the 6'5" girl was walking a few paces ahead of the shorter gal (I think they said she was 5'3" or something close to that) what they did was move half the picture "back" so it looked as if they are walking together instead of apart.

The girl is actually pretty tall (I mean 6'5" for a female is pretty damned tall IMO) While the photo's are doctored to make them seem 'real' they are actually real photo's ... does that make sense?

The one with her bending down "talking" to the guy, she was actually on a step, and they took that out and blended it into the floor the guy is standing on, and they lowered the arch in the wall a little bit so it seems that he is "normal" height. You can see the arch edit as they forgot to edit one side of it so it is up higher then the other side. LOL

We tore through the whole series of pictures in one on my classes. I don't understand why they edited it to make her so tall, personally at 6'5" she is tall enough LOL

[luluc 6]

however tall she "really" is...i'd KILL for LEGS - Long Legs!!! at 5'1 capris come past my ankles and shorts are capris..:biggrin:

[Wheetsin 714]

The clothing is a good point. I'm just under 6' and it's hell trying to find heels in my size (11). Not that I'd wear hoochie platforms like those. I can't imagine anyone her height finding stuff that isn't custom, especially if this weren't fake. And dresses... not that I could fit a dress like that on anything other than my calf, but if I could, it would come down as far as.... my belt, maybe. Long legs/height is hard to deal with. I often envy shorter people in some ways. I always seem to have an easier time finding "short" or "petite" than I do "talls".

[luluc 6]

it's annoying when even petites have to be tailored. from hip to ankle my legs are 23inces long (short). seeing that womans legs has me WAY envious:tongue: even if just for a day..LOL

[Pix 4]

and yes for me there is a big difference between chopped and shopped for photo's .. chopped is fake out 100% .. (ie she is actually really short and made to be tall etc, or many different photos made to be one real one) While shopped is manipulating a real photo and making it something else while still keeping with the aspects of the original photo.

Does that make sense?

[Gone4Now 4]

I am so impressed! I'd give anything to be detailed oriented like that...Great eye! What do you do that you deal with this stuff all the time?

Gloucester - look at her left leg, starting at the ankle. Move up to where you see the shadow of something behind them. There's a very rough "break" in the shadow that doesn't line up with any of the cracks on the sidewalk that would cause a break similar to that. You can see what might be "natural crack breaks" directly below that, but that wouldn't carry up to where this break occurs. The sidewalk would angle (perspective) as it went back, so if you were seeing a break due to a sidewalk crack, it would be a lot closer to her legf, if not behind it.

Plus, starting at that break, you'll notice there's a fairly visible "line" going up from exactly where the break occurs. Between her leg and the line it's a much brighter background, even when there should be dark background. This is a "giveaway" of something being superimposed. The manipulator will often blur/lighten/darken the cut out area to try and help it blend in with the background.

Is this evidence you'd want to take to court? Of course not. But I've been dealing with things like photo manipulation since 1993, and my eye says fake on this one.

Compare her leg to the other girl's leg. See how the other girl's leg has a dark background when there should be one? And another thing - the other girl has a brighter area around her calf (possibly just reflection), but it follows the countour of her leg - the tall girl's does not, it goes straight despite her leg curving.