[SteveZ]

Right, because no woman, ever, in the history of the world has had her perfectly natural tits reduced...

Steve Z

[TontoSolid]

but what?  like she's ashamed of them or something?  and she's lived with them her whole life, i imagine she's used to them by now.  i mean they were big but not to the point where they would cause her discomort or something.  those pictures show that they're vastly different, way beyond the natural increase in size that goes with pregnancy.

but you can have your fantasy that's alright.

[milom]

Quote:
but what?  like she's ashamed of them or something?  and she's lived with them her whole life, i imagine she's used to them by now.  i mean they were big but not to the point where they would cause her discomort or something.  those pictures show that they're vastly different, way beyond the natural increase in size that goes with pregnancy.

Amusingly, you don't seem to think attributing your thoughts/desires/fetish to a woman you've never met or spoken to is fantasy.  

"I imagine she's used to them by now."  Indeed.  Imagine.

[cmore]

Just a suggestion. Do yourself a favor and check out the underwater scene of Linsey in "Maximum Insertion." If Linsey has fake breasts then there is no difference between the type of implants that she has (had) and real flesh. That scene removed any doubt for me. She is 100% natural.

[TontoSolid]

Quote:

Quote:
but what?  like she's ashamed of them or something?  and she's lived with them her whole life, i imagine she's used to them by now.  i mean they were big but not to the point where they would cause her discomort or something.  those pictures show that they're vastly different, way beyond the natural increase in size that goes with pregnancy.

Amusingly, you don't seem to think attributing your thoughts/desires/fetish to a woman you've never met or spoken to is fantasy.  

"I imagine she's used to them by now."  Indeed.  Imagine.

such penetrating insight.  give me a break. the only fantasy i have is when i'm jerking it.  just think it's a little ridiculous how some people (probably people like you) have put her on this pedestal and think it's blasphemous to even suggest such a thing.

[GizmoWidget]

Quote:
Gizmo, I appreciate your input -- very thorough and certainly filled with facts I didn't know, as I do not even remotely have a PhD or MD or any "D" for that matter.

That said, I will respectfully disagree with you as...

No problem, that's entirely your prerogative.  However, the weight of scientific fact is against it.  And to be perfectly honest, I find it hard to believe that most of the other examples you cite haven't succumbed to the pressure of the industry.  Also, and I don't mean this in any personal way at all, I am extremely suspect of your claims because you yourself work in the industry and have a vested interest the claims you're making.  It's like when the tobacco industry says that cigarettes aren't addictive...

Also, note that what I'm saying is not that the biological facts I cite are proof, but they are extremely powerful evidence in favor of a particular conclusion that's all.

At this point, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because obviously there is nothing I can say you to convince you of the validity of my position.  But, that's the beauty of science, and one thing I have in my favor; my claims can be empirically falsified by observation and objective test.  Yours unfortunately, cannot.

[GizmoWidget]

Quote:
Gizmo, I have a science background myself and I think the point that is trying to be made is that there is the biological norm, but some women will fall outside that "normal" range and develop differently. I've seen many post-pregnancy women develop breasts much larger that stayed that way years after they stopped lactating. None of these women were models or had any injections to keep their breasts at their max.

Of course.  I understand, and you're totally right.  My wife is a perfect example of that.  After her pregnancy with our son she had a permanent gain; from a DD to an E cup.  However, that was her permanent gain, her lactation gain was that she went up to an HH cup.  That gain was lost when she stopped lactating.  The claim with Linsey, as far as I understand it, was that all of what she gained was permanent.  That is simply not supported by the facts of biology.

As I mention above, I'm not saying this is proof that Linsey got implants, just that it is extremely strong evidence that she did.  Also, as I mentioned before, and again, I don't mean this personally against DJ, but believing him that none of the models he mentions got implants, because of his involvement in the industry, is no different than believing RJ Reynolds when they say that cigarettes aren't addictive.  It just goes completely against the established body of knowledge in science about these matters.  

As an aside, I'm constantly dismayed by how little people actually appreciate science or understand it.  There has been a steady push in recent years to try and make science into some sort of bogeyman that is immoral and unethical.  I would really like to see how people feel about science if they suddenly lost all of the things that science has brought to them, such as computers, the internet, medicine and surgery, electricity, central heating, automobiles, etc. etc. etc.  I think people would be singing a different tune if they actually came face to face with the practical effects of the loss of science in their lives.

[gmantwo]

I volunteer my body to science; my hands (and any other needed parts) are willing to empirically test LDM, Jana and any other lady that BEA members feel are suspect in the real boob department. If that doctor can feel up Tyra Banks to show she's real, I can make the sacrifice.

[GA_Matt]

Gizmo: Until such time as you are able to imperically test your hypothesis on each subject, it remains unverified.  

What I was getting at is that your observations are biased, you think she's had implants, and you're not allowing for the fact that you're not in posession of all the evidence.  You fall back on previous observations (photographic and otherwise, I sincerely doubt you've ever been able to examine any of these models you're citing), but you have no concrete data to found your assertions on: ie. an actual mammogram or whatnot.

Until you have such data, and not anecdotal "evidence" I suggest you keep your ideas and suppositions as such, and not misrepresent them as fact.

In any case, get over yourself, if a model says she's natural, great.  If she's got implants and says that, I'm not carrying on a relationship with her... let her say what she likes, it's not like it's going to make me not look at a beautiful woman.


(BTW, I work in forensic sciences. I know the scientific method well enough, but I also have to stand by my work, as such, if I can't say for certain, I don't care to put my foot in my mouth.)

[GA_Matt]

Quote:
I volunteer my body to science; my hands (and any other needed parts) are willing to empirically test LDM, Jana and any other lady that BEA members feel are suspect in the real boob department. If that doctor can feel up Tyra Banks to show she's real, I can make the sacrifice.

EGAD!!! I think there would be a lot more people here that would voluntarily give up their time for such a noble cause!

[bonker]

LDM's were real.  Trust me.

[GizmoWidget]

Quote:
Gizmo: Until such time as you are able to imperically test your hypothesis on each subject, it remains unverified.  

What I was getting at is that your observations are biased, you think she's had implants, and you're not allowing for the fact that you're not in posession of all the evidence.  You fall back on previous observations (photographic and otherwise, I sincerely doubt you've ever been able to examine any of these models you're citing), but you have no concrete data to found your assertions on: ie. an actual mammogram or whatnot.

Until you have such data, and not anecdotal "evidence" I suggest you keep your ideas and suppositions as such, and not misrepresent them as fact.

In any case, get over yourself, if a model says she's natural, great.  If she's got implants and says that, I'm not carrying on a relationship with her... let her say what she likes, it's not like it's going to make me not look at a beautiful woman.


(BTW, I work in forensic sciences. I know the scientific method well enough, but I also have to stand by my work, as such, if I can't say for certain, I don't care to put my foot in my mouth.)

Biased?  Absolutely not.  I am basing my conclusion on the evidence as it exists in the real world and that I have access to.  Yes, there is other evidence that could disprove the conclusion that I have come to, but I am by no means biased.  If I was, then there would be no evidence that could be presented that contradicts my conclusion that I would accept, and that is simply not the case.  I have never said even one word here previously in this thread that indicates I possess such a bias.  You simply have read into it what you think I am saying, not what I have actually said.  If other evidence could be produced that would counter my conclusion, then I would change my conclusion.

And, that you assume that is my position, when it is not, shows that you at the very least have misread, let alone misundertood my previous posts, and it is you who should get over yourself, because clearly, you think you understand what I'm saying and what's wrong with it, when clearly you are not.  If you weren't, you wouldn't be making fallacious decisions about what I believe, and you wouldn't be confusing belief with conclusion.  You may be well versed in the scientific method, but clearly, you need a remedial course in logic...

Oh, and since you've done nothing here but make errors of attribution and conclusion in your reasoning, since your argument is false in so many ways, and depends on untrue premises to begin with, why don't you just keep your poorly reasoned and ill formed arguments to yourself, because clearly, you're just spewing because you can't get enough of yourself.

[DJPFC]

Those who think women can't get larger as they age without the help of implants should read this thread, started by funkyboobster, about his very own wife.

http://forum.bearchive.com/showflat.php?...0&fpart=all

Then again, I'm sure there are some who will argue that she must have gotten implants without his knowledge, because there's clearly "no way" a woman could ever get bigger later on in life without them.  

[Merita]

Quote:
Secondly, shot #2 also has a "fish eye" effect with her boobs closer to the lens than the rest of her, making them look proportionally even bigger. Thirdly, she's also leaning over the lens, to make them look even bigger, while shot #1 is just a simple glamour shot taken with a standard focal length.  All of these are reasons why her boobs look so much bigger in shot #2 vs shot #1.

I agree - it's actually extremely difficult (without a tape measure!) to genuinely document changes in breast size from available photos because of focal lengths and angles. Proof in the Natural Models who've grown thread DJPFC mentions, that Ewa Sonnet has grown (not something you'd deny watching the recent vids) is on hold for the moment because I'm having a hell of a time finding two matching poses from either end of her career.

In demonstration, I present this comparison of Liz from THA2 who I seem to have a bit of a thing for at the moment. Now, as it happens, she has grown a bit between her first THA shoots and the most recent, but these two pics are from the same shoot.

On the left we have "not bad - wouldn't push her out of bed", whilst on the right we have (in isolation) " 'kin 'ell where did those come from"

 

Liz actually also nicely illustrates the other boob related optical illusion - most of the time she doesn't actually look that big up top, until you see a shot where you can compare her to a piece of furniture or something and realise that she's extremely tall.

[DJPFC]

That is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in that earlier post.  Thank you for illustrating it even better.  Makes that comparison photo of Linsey look very unreliable and for anyone to base their "she must have gotten implants" conclusions on that would be wise not to.

Quote:

Quote:
Secondly, shot #2 also has a "fish eye" effect with her boobs closer to the lens than the rest of her, making them look proportionally even bigger. Thirdly, she's also leaning over the lens, to make them look even bigger, while shot #1 is just a simple glamour shot taken with a standard focal length.  All of these are reasons why her boobs look so much bigger in shot #2 vs shot #1.

I agree - it's actually extremely difficult (without a tape measure!) to genuinely document changes in breast size from available photos because of focal lengths and angles. Proof in the Natural Models who've grown thread DJPFC mentions, that Ewa Sonnet has grown (not something you'd deny watching the recent vids) is on hold for the moment because I'm having a hell of a time finding two matching poses from either end of her career.

In demonstration, I present this comparison of Liz from THA2 who I seem to have a bit of a thing for at the moment. Now, as it happens, she has grown a bit between her first THA shoots and the most recent, but these two pics are from the same shoot.

On the left we have "not bad - wouldn't push her out of bed", whilst on the right we have (in isolation) " 'kin 'ell where did those come from"

 

Liz actually also nicely illustrates the other boob related optical illusion - most of the time she doesn't actually look that big up top, until you see a shot where you can compare her to a piece of furniture or something and realise that she's extremely tall.