If there's any difference in footwear mentioned, just visually account for that fraction in the mugshot. The problem is though that at a glance people are seeing 5ft 8 Rob, then the line might show my hair brushing 5ft 9 or if I was in an inch sneaker a bit over 5ft 9.For me it was simpler to visualise as though I'm barefoot and if there was any difference in footwear simply account for that based on the line.We actually were standing here a long time I remember as Travis didn't have the right salute, at least the photographer was saying that to him!] said on 12/Oct/[email protected] 6'0 I doubt he's over 5ft 11, looks 5ft 11 with the converse but take away the 1.6cm advantage he will look a weak 5ft 11 like 5ft 10 7/8ths or 178.9cm which is what I think Frank will be if he got measured, they both look weak 5ft 11 guys to me. hmmm with a good pair of sneakers and Dr scholls maybe.I did think he might have measured 181-182 but, after seeing him with you, i don't think he's over 181![Editor Rob: yeah he's somewhere in 5ft 11 range I believe.Editor Rob: Sam, I'm impressed with honesty in height, regardless of the actual height of the person.
You are apparently bang on 5'8 yet in this picture you have your height as 5'8 in trainers and travis just over 5'11 in his trainers. Editor Rob: I've drew the lines to show how many inches difference there is in a photo as if I am 5ft 8 barefoot.
Or maybe Travis was measured shortly after out of bed and was measured exactly at 6'0 (hence his "solid" 6'0 claim), since most people lose about 0.75" from morning to evening, and he's probably not aware of the fact that people lose height.
But there's no excuse for him to claim 6'1" said on 18/Mar/16Upon first look I thought this guy was weak 6´ish (182cm), but looking close I think 181cm is closer.
2 inches IMO is pushing it, but it does almost seem the norm these days.
Shouldn't have to worry about lying if you're 6'0 because most people or a lot of people will probably think you're tall in person anyway so there is no need to lie.