The Bats in Dome’s Attic
In your opinion, I asked the readers of another blog – one which enjoys thousands of readers a day and is run by a gentleman of impeccable upbringing and who has had the benefit of a ‘bright’ education’ – which of the two men of apparent equal height in the picture below do you think is the highest? A straightforward request I thought and hopefully some of the respondents might engage themselves in a fruitful manner and the exercise may assist in the gathering of some thoughtful opinions.
Perhaps a consensus of sorts could be reached. A man must always be optimistic.
The picture as you can see is of two young men and an older couple. One man with his arms about them, the other shoulder to shoulder with the woman. This, I thought should not be too difficult a task so I sat back and waited for the responses – –
What should be carefully noted is that the blonde Charlie – once known as The Somerton Man – was measured as being 5’11 and the chap named Roy as 5’8″
They were immediate.
‘Simple’ wrote one, ‘the blonde Charlie, he’s standing a lot further back than Roy and he’s got very long arms.’
‘Simple’ wrote another, ‘the blonde Charlie, he’s been playing tennis and is standing in a hole in the ground with his sand-shoes off.’
‘Simple,’ wrote one more, ‘the blonde Charlie, Roy’s height challenged and he’s standing up on his toes because he doesn’t want to look like a midget.’
‘Simple,’ wrote yet another, ‘the blonde Charlie, Roy’s got a height problem and he’s wearing built-up shoes to compensate.’
‘Simple,’ wrote number five, ‘the blonde Charlie, Roy’s standing on a slight rise and looks taller than he really is.’
‘Simple,’ wrote the next, ‘the blonde Charlie, Roy’s probably standing on a box like Humphrey Bogart did to look the same height as Ingrid Bergman.’ (think Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz)
‘Simple,’ wrote a newcomer to the conversation, ‘the blonde Charlie, Roy’s obviously got the Bob Hawke syndrome and has found an anthill to stand on to elevate his status.’
‘Simple,’ wrote a real trudger, ‘although the blonde Charlie is supposed be higher than Roy we aren’t to know if the person who measured him did a sloppy job of it.’
‘Simple,’ said a voice from the back of the room, ‘the blonde Charlie because it’s all about perception and you can’t trust a photo to be accurate.’ (This from a bloke who has never had to apply for a passport)
‘Simpel,’ wrote somebody not so strong on his spelling, ‘the blond Charli because he’s got a niser smile.’
‘This is all an unnecessary distraction,’ wrote an obvious intellectual. (From what we don’t know.)
‘Simple,’ wrote the most condescending of all the bats in Dome’s rafters, ‘OK Kids here’s something to try at home . Get 2 identical sized coffee cups and place one on the front of a table put the second up 30 cm’ behind it and 10 cm’s to the left. Now take out you phone and take a photograph from the front cup , at the edge of the table with both cups in the frame and drop the camera down a few degrees Now if you’ve followed these instructions correctly you will see that the cup in front looks taller and larger than the one behind. Thats angle and depth of field. Roy is forward of Charles and the photographer is shooting upwards.’
The moral of this post is to never expect too much sense from those who habitually inhabit blogs, they may be happily married and holding down well-paid jobs in corporate offices, they may be members of exclusive clubs and owners of mortgage-free homes but when it comes to assuming a pseudonym and posting to a blog they undergo a change of identity to suit their online persona and this, I’m sorry to say is a well-researched phenomenon.
Which of course does not apply to any individuals who may condescend to visit this poor portal.
Well done PB on the image but there’s 2 problems. But before I get to that measure both cops in the image. On my screen the front cup measures 1.5 cms and the one behind is just under 1 cm hence the front cup is larger in the image despite being the same size mugs.
Anyhow here’s the 2 problems , you’ve taken them from almost side on as evidenced by the balcony angling across the image NOT from behind the front cup and the instructions are very clear on that. Second and even more importantly your shooting down on the cups NOT dropping down a few degrees as seen in the group image. The instructions were pretty clear PB.
Anyhow post this or not old mate but your sounding a bit like grumpy old GC bro.
Dude. If Roy was to (1) stand up straight, which would gain him height, (2) move back a couple of inches to be level with the blonde, which would lose him height …. Do you think the difference between the two would be 3 inches (7.62cm)? All this requires is a simple yes or no. Maybe doesn’t cut it, and neither does this BS about cups and saucers. Like the intellectual said, ‘that is all an unnecessary distraction.’
The shortest answer I can give Pb without any palavaer is based on what Im looking at I suspect that “blondy” is the taller of the two.
As far as inches go its just gestimation. Its an interesting observation and if we had the 2 of them side by side barefoot on a stadiometer then its a game changer but with this photo only there are just to many unknowns IMHO.
Thanks for that. We have two known standards to apply to the photo. Roy is 5’8” …. The blond is supposed to be 5’11” ….
That is a lot of difference and it’s not at all obvious in the photo, far from it. What’s more, if you have a look at the photo of the blonde Richard Charles, who coincidentally is 5’8, you can see a similarity in the way he liked to have his hair cut compared to the blonde. Abbott picked the wrong Webb. Dome thought as much even before knowing he was the same height as Roy.
You’ll get no argument from me regarding on that score PB. The resemblance between blond Charlie and SM is very strong.
PS “Blond Charlie” referred to in previous post being the younger as seen in army mug shot.
Do you mean the blonde Richard Webb?
The blond dude in the coloured army mug shot.
Doing him now … he has the hair
I’d be interested to compare Hawke’s and Rudd’s height…..because I think that photo might be exactly the sort of perception trick we’re seeing (wow, didn’t recognise Keating). I reckon Keating is taller than Rudd too – but notice how much smaller his head is in the pic and how much narrower his legs appear, there’s some perception trickery happening there too.
Google Tells me:
Keating: 1.82m (6′ – or pedantically 5’11.65)
Rudd: 1.79m (5’10 (.47))
Hawke: 1.73m (5’8 (.11))
So there’s more than an inch between Rudd and Keating, more than 2 inches Hawke to Rudd and about 3.5 inches Hawke to Keating. So I guess the really deceptive bit isn’t Hawke’s shortness, it’ the height difference Rudd to Keating….