Is it an inaccurate poster or is he slouching or have we all

>>12737749
He is 179cm without his hair

if hes wearing normal shoes then hes like 5'8

>>12738197
>>12738280
He usually looks tall and at least normal height compared to other models. So there is no way he would be under 6' surely. Also what kind of normal shoes give 2-3" height

>>12738580
oh wait shit, i though 5 feet was 62 inches for some reason, fucking centimeters fucking me up. ok then he is absolute max, no more than 71 inches, without hair and without shoes and without head tilted up, which skews the camera angle, he is max 5'9.5, and certainly not more than 5'10. idont even know who it is nayway. if i saw more pics i could say better.

>>12738580
>what are flattering camera angles

>>12738595
>>12738595
a legit 6 footer would be easily over the 72 inch mark, even with slouching, and no poofy hair, this is called reality check, when you think someone who is tall is not actually even 6 feet. this just shows how much people lie about their height. it artifically inflates height. because 60% of males who remotely close to being 6 feet all say they are 6 feet, and so do all the bios and celebtriites all have fake heights on their bios. same with models and athletes. they inflate height to sell more things.

except i just saw stephan struve in ufc last week and for some reason they list him at 6'11.5 like wtf. why lol. just list him at 7 feet, who can even get that high to really see it anyway.

File: Barrett.jpg (229KB, 1222x809px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1222x809px

Seems unlikely they'd risk listing someone who is 5'10 as like 6'2 or whatever instead of just 6'0

>>12738606
he looks yea like hes about 5'10-11 there, he is not a "tall" person at any rate. no where near 6'2 is this game of thrones or wtf/

>>12738624
There's no way one of the most famous male models is 5'10 and no way he's taller than everyone else in that photo if he was