- 220
- 161
NGL bro remove the s. It's legit a thread-saver.Nvm agreeing with NamiKami now /s
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NGL bro remove the s. It's legit a thread-saver.Nvm agreeing with NamiKami now /s
My point is that you can make different arguments about the size of other objects as they're not given a stated size and just have sizes calced from other smaller things. The Forest of Death is the only thing that has an EXACT canonical size, and as it's one of the largest areas within Konoha, it's much easier to represent accurately (you'd find it easier for example to draw something like Russia or Canada on a global map to scale than a small city simply due to restrictions on utensil and human precision, assuming the map isn't huge of course).If you can believe that Kishimoto drew everything else about Konoha in that panel incorrectly except for its exact radius, and the Forest of Death, then it doesn't seem hard to believe that he could've also drawn the Forest of Death inaccurately. (Which doesn't have to just mean size either but other details too. No split in the rivers, no sign of the rock formations behind the characters)
Since I've shown that the landmarks of Konoha (including one of the main streets) is closer in size to the reference points I chose, it seems that the balance of evidence is against the Forest of Death being the most accurate measuring stick.
For real, you already showed your arguments why not just wait and see the others opinion instead of trying to corner everyone who disagrees with you? All of those points were already repeatedly talked about earlier, let others decide for themselves.Can anyone actually understand how frustrating it is that what I see are very real issues are just being glossed over?
The proposal at its core is find a distance value by comparing it to an object of reference.
There are multiple other objects of reference in the panel.
To verify whether the main object of reference we're using is reliable, we can compare the distance value we get from it to the other objects of reference.
If we use those multiple objects of reference, we find a set of distance values that is far smaller than the proposed value.
How is this not the definition of an inconsistency? How many possible alternative calcs would it take to convince people that Konoha is not 124 kilometers in diameter?
I really can't fathom how we can accept on one hand that Kishimoto drew the walls and drew the Hokage monument and drew the streets of Konoha to be dozens of times bigger than they're portrayed everywhere else in the series and so clearly he has no sense of scale whatsoever.... and on the other hand accept that he drew the Forest of Death perfectly, no errors at all in scale.
If someone else can explain how we can possibly reconcile this without inconsistency, please do because it's frustrating as hell.
Sure, we don't have an official size for them... But that doesn't automatically mean my calcs for them are wrong.My point is that you can make different arguments about the size of other objects as they're not given a stated size and just have sizes calced from other smaller things. The Forest of Death is the only thing that has an EXACT canonical size, and as it's one of the largest areas within Konoha, it's much easier to represent accurately (you'd find it easier for example to draw something like Russia or Canada on a global map to scale than a small city simply due to restrictions on utensil and human precision, assuming the map isn't huge of course).
People will ultimately vote how they vote. I'm just expressing my frustration while simultaneously rephrasing my argument.For real, you already showed your arguments why not just wait and see the others opinion instead of trying to corner everyone who disagrees with you? All of those points were already repeatedly talked about earlier, let others decide for themselves.
I understand you. Consistency matters. Which is why I was against 124km Konoha for 95% of the thread. However, I do believe that given the fact that we have statements to support Konoha's size, we can rule the depictions of Konoha as not being meant-to-scale.Can anyone actually understand how frustrating it is that what I see are very real issues are just being glossed over?
How is this not the definition of an inconsistency? How many possible alternative calcs would it take to convince people that Konoha is not 124 kilometers in diameter?
Pretty much why I agree with possibly, myself. Worst case scenario, we could use 20 km as the lowest possible we know to be true, based on the statements of the forest and being merely part of the outskirts.I understand you. Consistency matters. Which is why I was against 124km Konoha for 95% of the thread. However, I do believe that given the fact that we have statements to support Konoha's size, we can rule the depictions of Konoha as not being meant-to-scale.
Now, I want you to understand something. When I say "not-meant-to-scale" I don't say "the buildings are hundreds of meters!!!". This is ridiculous. I believe they are as big as depicted. Including the Hokage mountain. What I do however mean is that when Kishimoto draws Konoha, it's not meant to be taken as the WHOLE of Konoha. If Kishimoto were to try to draw ALL of Konoha, it'd be too much. So what I believe is that he simply draws the key parts of Konoha, not the whole of it.
What I mean is: Konoha contains much more than these wide-shot panels depict, more-so than the individual structures being taller and bigger. Which is why Konoha varies so greatly in-between shots.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but no Konoha wide-shots don't depict A LOT of things we know exist lore-wise.
Reasons to accept the current Konoha-size:
•We have a statement that the FoD is merely a PART of an OUTSKIRT of Konoha, which'd require the rest of Konoha to massively dwarf it.
•We have an implication that Konoha's population may be in the millions.
•We know that Kishimoto does not depict everything that's within Konoha when making wide-shots, so Konoha shots are not meant to be taken that seriously.
Reasons to disagree:
•The fact that Konoha is consistently portrayed as small.
•Too
•Many
•Times
•Like legit we could find dozens of examples.
Overall I see the point behind both sides, and honestly I'm not 100% on either side.
I don't disagree, I'm just saying things with official sizes take prioritySure, we don't have an official size for them... But that doesn't automatically mean my calcs for them are wrong.
TBH if we accept the databook statement I think it's gonna go beyond possibly.Pretty much why I agree with possibly, myself. Worst case scenario, we could use 20 km as the lowest possible we know to be true, based on the statements of the forest and being merely part of the outskirts.
Forgot to mention the fanbook saying that Konoha is more like a big city.Reasons to accept the current Konoha-size:
•We have a statement that the FoD is merely a PART of an OUTSKIRT of Konoha, which'd require the rest of Konoha to massively dwarf it.
•We have an implication that Konoha's population may be in the millions.
C) Konoha boasts a pretty substantial population given the statements about the ratio between civilians and Shinobi, as well as the ratio of Genin to Chunin, with Jonin being even more rare. This in combination with the fact that Konoha can send at least between 13-16,000 elite Chunin and Jonin supports the notion that there is a rather large population in my estimation. A population that I simply believe is likely too large to contain within a ~2Km village containing no high-rise buildings or skyscrapers.
Oh, yeah, no I understand that. My wording was just whacky there as I was writing in a hurry. I'll adjust it to avoid confusion.For the record the average value for the three methods that I calced would be 2297 m which would be for the radius, and the diameter would be ~4.5 km.
Only clarifying just in case your size estimate there meant you thought I was saying the village was 2 km from end to end.
If pointing out how the result of a calc is inconsistent by comparing it to other calcs is an Argument from Increduility, then I have no clue what an Argument from Incredulity is anymore. Just seems like a buzzword to dismiss counter-evidence.I feel like even with arguing about how individual structures in Konoha would be ridiculously large if we were to take the size at face value (which again, doesn't disprove anything, it's just an argument of incredulity at that point)
There are also the training grounds, which are so massive that buildings can't even be seen from them, and are seen containing mountains. These same training grounds are heavily implied to be within Konoha, and even house the memorial stone for the dead heroes. This implies that Konoha isn't just a bunch of buildings squashed together, like the wide-shots depicts, but actually contains a lot of wildlife, mountains, and forests. Which makes sense if it's large enough that a 10km forest is merely a part of it's outskirts. So what's within the walls of Konoha could be MASSIVE.D) Given that essentially all depictions of Konoha do NOT actually include all areas or landmarks we know to be within the village, such as the massive cemetery
Mhmm, yeah, for sure. I agree. Thanks for bringing up more examples cause I didn't have time to go hunt for scans.There are also the training grounds, which are so massive that buildings can't even be seen from them, and are seen containing mountains. These same training grounds are heavily implied to be within Konoha, and even house the memorial stone for the dead heroes. This implies that Konoha isn't just a bunch of buildings squashed together, like the wide-shots depicts, but actually contains a lot of wildlife, mountains, and forests. Which makes sense if it's large enough that a 10km forest is merely a part of it's outskirts. So what's within the walls of Konoha could be MASSIVE.
Definitely not the case. I'd have zero problem with the structures or walls or monuments of Konoha being absolutely gigantic, if I thought for a moment that it was consistent.@Damage3245 you're literally arguing that the individual structures would be gigantic and that's somehow an issue in this fantasy story where it's not taking place in our world.
What do you think I've been doing by calculating different sizes of Konoha and comparing that Arc's calculation?This is no different than you saying that if we accept that Konoha is that big, then it's an issue because it's like arguing it's bigger than Japan, which is a nothing burger argument when it doesn't take place in our world. If the forest of death is confirmed to be that big, and Konoha is much bigger than that via what's shown, then what's the exact problem here beyond just bringing up some random what if scenarios that aren't proven at all beyond theories? If you have an issue with what Arc calced to be Konoha's size then argue against that rather than points that mean nothing like "oh this building would be X times larger".
Currently I'm leaning more towards Arc's size, but you severely and disgustingly downplayed and misrepresented Damage's arguments. He isn't arguing what-ifs. Nor did he ignore Arc's points. He brought-up counter-evidence in the form of conflicting statements of the population and much higher amounts of visuals that depict Konoha as smaller, since it wasn't proven yet that the FoD's size applies to Konoha and that relied on pixel-scales as well. Keep in mind people started changing their minds after his points. So to call it nothing-burgers is insane.@Damage3245 you're literally arguing that the individual structures would be gigantic and that's somehow an issue in this fantasy story where it's not taking place in our world. This is no different than you saying that if we accept that Konoha is that big, then it's an issue because it's like arguing it's bigger than Japan, which is a nothing burger argument when it doesn't take place in our world. If the forest of death is confirmed to be that big, and Konoha is much bigger than that via what's shown, then what's the exact problem here beyond just bringing up some random what if scenarios that aren't proven at all beyond theories? If you have an issue with what Arc calced to be Konoha's size then argue against that rather than points that mean nothing like "oh this building would be X times larger".
By the way it's not just implied it's straight out stated later that Naruto left the village for the first time in the land of waves mission which means the trainning ground they had to fight Kakashi is indeed inside Konoha
I believe the argument is moreso that you can see people with confirmed heights next to structures and they aren't that large@Nami_Kami Literally arguing that if we accept Konoha being X size than Y building or Z roads would be insanely large is a nothing burger because at no point is this tackling anything about the confirmed size of the locations in the first place. I'm not seeing how this is any different than the Japan point he made earlier, which means nothing to the argument that the forest of death is 20KM wide and Konoha is much larger than it. If Damage wants to disprove it, I'd like to see actual conflicting statements on how big Konoha or the forest of death really is. I've already said my piece, if Damage doesn't provide any actual scans to contradict the 20KM wide statement then my stance won't change.
Holy ****, Suigetsu. I LOVE YOU. Honestly I was 50/50 on whether the training grounds were really within Konoha, but this confirms it. This also means that the HUGE forest which was so far away from civilization that no buildings could be seen is also part of Konoha.By the way it's not just implied it's straight out stated later that Naruto left the village for the first time in the land of waves mission which means the trainning ground they had to fight Kakashi is indeed inside Konoha
outside Konoha, on the outskirts of the land of firequick question since its been a while, is the Valley of the End confirmed to be in Konoha or is that a neutral area?
No, he was actually showing that BY THE LOGIC of the original argumentation provided by Arc, Konoha's buildings would have to be that big, since it was based on visual pixel-scaling. And yet we know that isn't true. This did indeed put to question Konoha's size even assuming that forest we see in C115 is the FoD. However, in light of the argumentation I provided, Konoha's size is no longer even dependant on that panel. In fact, we can say that the forest in C115 isn't the FoD ( I don't think it was ever objectively proven to begin with ) and we can still argue Konoha is a massive place ranging in the dozens to hundreds of KM simply due to statement evidence. But that said, let's just stick to the new arguments.@Nami_Kami Literally arguing that if we accept Konoha being X size than Y building or Z roads would be insanely large is a nothing burger because at no point is this tackling anything about the confirmed size of the locations in the first place. I'm not seeing how this is any different than the Japan point he made earlier, which means nothing to the argument that the forest of death is 20KM wide and Konoha is much larger than it. If Damage wants to disprove it, I'd like to see actual conflicting statements on how big Konoha or the forest of death really is. I've already said my piece, if Damage doesn't provide any actual scans to contradict the 20KM wide statement then my stance won't change.
Yeah, like Net said, it's basically right on the border of the Land of Fire and Land of Sound.quick question since its been a while, is the Valley of the End confirmed to be in Konoha or is that a neutral area?
It's outsise of Konoha. It's in the spot where Madara fought Hashirama, and in the flashback Madara verbatim says that Hashirama dragged them outside of Konoha to protect the village.quick question since its been a while, is the Valley of the End confirmed to be in Konoha or is that a neutral area?
If you think I was ever arguing against the 20 km wide statement then I don't know which posts you were reading but they weren't mine., if Damage doesn't provide any actual scans to contradict the 20KM wide statement then my stance won't change.
Honestly, yeah. It was clear you never argued that. But let's move past this.If you think I was ever arguing against the 20 km wide statement then I don't know which posts you were reading but they weren't mine.
VonKey momentYo, chat.