Forest of Susser

[Arc7Kuroi]

Intro
This is a revisit of this thread for this calc that highkey just died off without ever reaching a solid conclusion.

Argument
The claim here is that the circular forest we see with the river running through it is the Forest of Death. The argument as for why that circular forest would be the FoD is simply an abduction argument, aka making a logical inference based upon what is most likely true from a set of observations, aka a claim on likelihood. The FoD is a nigh-perfect circular forest with a river running through it, the forest outside Konoha is a nigh-perfect circular forest with a river running through it. Given that the chances of there being two nigh-perfect circular forests existing near Konoha is extremely unlikely, as such phenomena is very rare, it is more likely that they are intended to be the same forests, i.e. that forest outside Konoha is the FoD.

One of the primary counter arguments was that the map was not 1:1 with the actual forest itself. However, map depictions and specifically one's that are so blatantly not realistically accurate (as the FoD map depiction is rather cartoonishly depicted) are just not 1:1 with the real world. In fact, they aren't even meant to be 1:1, they're meant to artistically convey key points of an area being mapped. And in this case the key points are that the FoD is a circular forest with a river running through it, with a tower buried somewhere in the center of the forest, and the radius is 10 km. Furthermore, just to emphasize the map not being 1:1, if we did assume the map was 1:1 with reality, we'd have to concede that trees in Naruto are multiple km tall and wide, which just isn't the case. We do see the river splits at the southern end of the map; however, we cannot use the map to accurately deduce how big the split between the river is (given we've established that the objects in the map aren't drawn to scale). As such, the actual image of the FoD not showing a noticeable split can simply be because the perspective is in such a manner (tilted and very far away) that the split in the river cannot be seen from that perspective.

The other primary counter argument was that Konoha is not depicted visually as consistently larger than a 20 km wide forest. I think this is a little disingenuous, since the only other time we get a wide shot of Konoha is when Pain goes and destroys the village. So, in terms of establishing shots that display the village in comparison to something of known size, we only have the single image of it by the FoD. Furthermore, the currently accepted means of calculating Konoha's size revolve around us using one panel to compare someone to the Kage Mt. Rushmore, then another panel to compare that to Konoha. Meaning that our current size asserts that Kishimoto stayed consistent in sizes between these multiple pages and panels, which by far introduces more room for error. Especially when compared to a depiction that is intended to serve as an establishing shot for the setting. I'd also argue that the author intent here trumps the fan calc assumptions as well, we make concessions for fiction all the time when it comes to realism (FTL anything, AP vs DC, etc etc etc). So when it comes to an author having inconsistent visual depictions of something, but a stated size, I do believe we can claim that the stated size is far more likely what the author intended for his series.

Conclusion
Based on the above I think we should either A) flat out upgrade Konoha's size or B) treat this FoD Konoha size as a "likely" size for Konoha given it falls under the pervue of having notable evidence and likelihood in support of the claim.

Agree: Tracer (option A), Slayer (option A), Glass (option A), Mitch (option A), DDM (option A), Lephyr (possibly)
Neutral: Griff
Disagree: Damage, Qawsdef, DT

 

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

 

[Deceived3596]

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

 

[Godernet]

 

[LordTracer]

Yeah, I think this is good for a solid upgrade to Konoha’s size.

 

[Rocker1189]

I have had this thought for a while so I agree with it. I also think the Boruto appears to imply that the village is a lot bigger than we see visually. Yes I know that this is post Pain so the village almost certainly has changed in size but I think it still supports the idea. (some part 1 anime Naruto shots of the village also imply this). Also there is the implication of training grounds with mountains within the village. We can see these in shots of the training grounds that the bell test took place in.

Basically I agree FRA.

Edit: one more thing trees in Naruto being km high (well hundreds of meters in height more like) is not that unfounded actually. Just something I wanted to note.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

Seems straight forward imo. Agree FRA.

 

[AnimesFreak2]

AGREE

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

I have had this thought for a while so I agree with it. I also think the Boruto appears to imply that the village is a lot bigger than we see visually. Yes I know that this is post Pain so the village almost certainly has changed in size but I think it still supports the idea. (some part 1 anime Naruto shots of the village also imply this). Also there is the implication of training grounds with mountains within the village. We can see these in shots of the training grounds that the bell test took place in.

Basically I agree FRA.

Edit: one more thing trees in Naruto being km high (well hundreds of meters in height more like) is not that unfounded actually. Just something I wanted to note.

Actually the bulk of the village isn't that much larger, we have establishing shots and even maps from the boruto Era and the expanded area isn't big enough to actually make up a Huge difference

 

[Rocker1189]

Actually the bulk of the village isn't that much larger, we have establishing shots and even maps from the boruto Era and the expanded area isn't big enough to actually make up a Huge difference

Oh I know that I was saying that Boruto supported a larger size for the village but also acknowledged there was an expansion just not a significant one.

 

[Kidkinsey]

Upgrade it all you want deidara c3 still nukes it

 

[That_moron2]

Agree

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Me right now having seen the previous discussion and taking part in it.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

So I don't really have much to say. I'm not a fan of maps/pixel scaling, obviously can't be 1.1 but the various sizes of images in the general sense have always been a problem for me. I guess using the stated size and the image that has both in frame to some degree is usable.

Will see what others think but you can put me down for option A I guess.

 

[Damage3245]

This seems to be just the exact same thread all over again, over a year later, with nothing new having come out in that time to provide further evidence.

Put down as a disagree for this for now, and I'll go further in-depth on this when I have time.

EDIT: These kinds of discussions have been around for over 6 years, so please be a bit patient as I get around to this, haha:

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Take your time bubba, I ain’t in a rush

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Well, well, well.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I held a neutral stance during the previous thread way back when.
But after reading Arc's argument again, I find myself in favor of them at this moment in time. Is it outright stated verbatim that the circular forest we see on the outskirts of Konoha is, in fact, the Forest of Death? No, not quite. But as Arc has pointed out, it is a rather safe conclusion to reach using abductive reasoning.
So, yeah, I think I'm in favor of Option A. Although, I might be okay with Option B depending on the counterarguments, so I'll wait for those to be made.

 

[Damage3245]

I should be able to get my response post up tomorrow.

 

[Theglassman12]

On a glance, I think option A is fine, but I'll wait for Damage to respond before I solidify my stance.

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, so I'm not going to address the method itself used in the calc. I want to address the latter part of the OP and I want to show that in this situation the result we get matters just as much as the method used to find it.

I know that some people's gut instinct may be "Well, if the assumptions aren't unfounded and the pixelscaling is correct, then no matter what the result is, it's correct."

But not just any result is a good thing. And why would that be?

Well, let's consider why we're having a size calc be made at all. It's not just for a fun little factoid about Konoha's size; that doesn't add anything to the profiles.

The reason why a size calc is being made for Konoha is to use it in another calc; by comparing Konoha's diameter or area to a feat of destruction typically, and saying "Well if Konoha is X big then this level of destruction would be Y strong." And there's nothing inherently wrong with that; all it is will be taking one step of pixelscaling (finding Konoha's size from the Forest of Death) and applying it to another step of pixelscaling (finding a destructive feat's size from Konoha).

However, our Calc Stacking page (while allowing this), does say this:

• Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.

This method is acceptable, with the caveat that what is being scaled here stays a constant size.

So to verify if the result is accurate, let's take a look at it. The values that Arc7Kuroi's calc produces are:

• Konohagakure's Radius = 62.0392 km
• Konohagakure's Diameter = 124.0784 km
• Hokage Mountain = 2.5098 km

As we know from this scan, and this scan, Konoha is a roughly circular village being protected by both a circular wall and a spherical barrier. Two shots from the anime here and here further confirm that as well. So we can figure out the area that Konoha would roughly cover using the radius above.

• Konohagakure's Surface Area = 12091.56 km^2

I don't want to understate what kind of value this is for Konoha's size... If you're having a hard time picturing it, like I did at first, here are a couple of comparisons to a few well-known large cities from our world:

Spoiler: Konoha's Size compared to London

Spoiler: Konoha's Size compared to Tokyo

Yep, Konoha would be bigger than both of them. If we look at the Urban areas for 5 of some of the largest cities in the world, Konoha is bigger than virtually all of them:

And lastly another helpful visual of just how big a similar vlaue, 12,350 km^2, is on the city of Tokyo, one of the largest cities in the world:

Spoiler: Surface Area of Tokyo

Okay, so the area / radius of Konoha in the calc is indisputably large I believe. I've presented how this ninja village is as big, or bigger than, some of the largest cities in the world. But hey, it's fiction, so I'm not going to pretend this is an automatic debunk. Maybe Konoha really is that big... but is it consistently that big? Well, let's take a look.

One of the most notable landmarks of Konoha is of course the Hokage mountain, the Mt. Rushmore lookalike with all of the Hokage's head on it. Arc7Kuroi's calc puts that at roughly 2509.8 meters. For reference that is almost exactly three times taller than the height of the largest skyscraper in the world, the 828 meter tall Burj Khalifa.

Of course as far as I'm aware the Hokage Mountain is never depicted being anywhere near that big elsewhere in the series. Not at the beginning in Chapter 1, nor at the end in Chapter 700. We can see when characters stand atop the Hokage heads themselves, such as Minato standing atop his own head or all of the Hokage standing atop their heads. They're big, sure, but Arc7Kuroi's calc would make them several hundreds of meters tall which they consistently are not.

Art style shifts. Details change. But the size is never depicted like that.

That's just one landmark though, there is also the encircling wall around Konoha. We can get an idea of how thick the wall is from people standing on top of it and we have an idea of how tall the wall is roughly from comparing the thickness of the wall to its height. It's pretty big... but not what Arc7Kuroi's calc would suggest it to be, which would be 1600 meters by my estimate. An early establishing shot of the size of the gate in the wall doesn't show it being anywhere near that large, does it?

So even assuming that the forest in Arc7Kuroi's calc is the Forest of Death with a stated radius of 10 km, comparing it to any Konoha's other notable landmarks produces sizes that are wildly inconsistent with their depiction anywhere else in the series.

So if the calc isn't suitable for finding the size of any of Konoha's landmarks, why would it be suitable for finding the size of Konoha itself?

I've seen in the OP that Arc7Kuroi says this:

So, in terms of establishing shots that display the village in comparison to something of known size, we only have the single image of it by the FoD. Furthermore, the currently accepted means of calculating Konoha's size revolve around us using one panel to compare someone to the Kage Mt. Rushmore, then another panel to compare that to Konoha. Meaning that our current size asserts that Kishimoto stayed consistent in sizes between these multiple pages and panels, which by far introduces more room for error.

This argument is a little disingenuous to me - the idea that comparing one panel to another means that too much room for error has been introduced comparing to the method in the OP which uses a single panel and statement to find Konoha's radius. Since the whole purpose of having a size calc like this would be to use it for another panel where a feat occurs as I established earlier, then this would necessarily come with it the assumption that Kishimoto is staying consistent between multiple pages and panels. The method in the OP does not eliminate this.

I'm not denying that there is inherently going to be some variation in Konoha's size due to shifting art styles and compositions across the years-long series, but I've provided multiple scans up above showing that while there is variation the version from the OP is the least consistent out of all of them.

Having the simplest method isn't an overwhelming benefit if it produces a result that is massively different from everything else.

The OP also asserts that author intent trumps any other calcs that could be used since the panel used is an establishing shot from the first quarter of the series. But the more recent information presented to the audience by the author should almost certainly take priority over the earlier depictions; early details could be softly retconned out by how the artist's vision for the series changes over time. If a single early shot gives the impression of Konoha being 124 km across, but then multiple later shots contradict that... Why couldn't it be that the earlier shot is in error?

Bearing in mind the visuals up above that I shared which show the size of the hypothetical 124 km diameter village against cities like London and Tokyo.... Consider these various shots we get:

• Does it look likely that the wall on the far side of Konoha is 124 kilometers away here?
• How big would these walls have to be for the visible curvature of a circle with a circumference of 389.8 kilometers?
• How tall would these buildings be which we see in relation to the walls? Is every structure in Konoha bigger than the tallest building in our world?

This post ended up being longer than I anticipated but the point that I want to emphasize is that it doesn't solely matter if the calc uses a mathematically correct method with the right pixelscaling.... Our standards on this being allowable require the pixelscaled object (Konoha village) to be relatively constant in size. And my argument, backed up by scans throughout the entire series, is that it's not.


Apologies for the ping @LordTracer, @LordGriffin1000, @UchihaSlayer96, @Theglassman12 but could you tell me after looking at the OP and at my post, where the consistency is for Konoha village to be upgraded have a diameter of 124 kilometers?

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

Okay, so I'm not going to address the method itself used in the calc. I want to address the latter part of the OP and I want to show that in this situation the result we get matters just as much as the method used to find it.

I know that some people's gut instinct may be "Well, if the assumptions aren't unfounded and the pixelscaling is correct, then no matter what the result is, it's correct."

But not just any result is a good thing. And why would that be?

Well, let's consider why we're having a size calc be made at all. It's not just for a fun little factoid about Konoha's size; that doesn't add anything to the profiles.

The reason why a size calc is being made for Konoha is to use it in another calc; by comparing Konoha's diameter or area to a feat of destruction typically, and saying "Well if Konoha is X big then this level of destruction would be Y strong." And there's nothing inherently wrong with that; all it is will be taking one step of pixelscaling (finding Konoha's size from the Forest of Death) and applying it to another step of pixelscaling (finding a destructive feat's size from Konoha).

However, our Calc Stacking page (while allowing this), does say this:

• Pixel scaling over several steps is permitted, as long as the size of the scaled objects usually stays constant.

This method is acceptable, with the caveat that what is being scaled here stays a constant size.

So to verify if the result is accurate, let's take a look at it. The values that Arc7Kuroi's calc produces are:

• Konohagakure's Radius = 62.0392 km
• Konohagakure's Diameter = 124.0784 km
• Hokage Mountain = 2.5098 km

As we know from this scan, and this scan, Konoha is a roughly circular village being protected by both a circular wall and a spherical barrier. Two shots from the anime here and here further confirm that as well. So we can figure out the area that Konoha would roughly cover using the radius above.

• Konohagakure's Surface Area = 12091.56 km^2

I don't want to understate what kind of value this is for Konoha's size... If you're having a hard time picturing it, like I did at first, here are a couple of comparisons to a few well-known large cities from our world:

Spoiler: Konoha's Size compared to London

Spoiler: Konoha's Size compared to Tokyo

Yep, Konoha would be bigger than both of them. If we look at the Urban areas for 5 of some of the largest cities in the world, Konoha is bigger than virtually all of them:

And lastly another helpful visual of just how big a similar vlaue, 12,350 km^2, is on the city of Tokyo, one of the largest cities in the world:

Spoiler: Surface Area of Tokyo

Okay, so the area / radius of Konoha in the calc is indisputably large I believe. I've presented how this ninja village it is as big, or bigger than, some of the largest cities in the world. But hey, it's fiction, so I'm not going to pretend this is an automatic debunk. Maybe Konoha really is that big... but is it consistently that big? Well, let's take a look.

One of the most notable landmarks of Konoha is of course the Hokage mountain, the Mt. Rushmore lookalike with all of the Hokage's head on it. Arc7Kuroi's calc puts that at roughly 2509.8 meters. For reference that is almost exactly three times taller than the height of the largest skyscraper in the world, the 828 meter tall Burj Khalifa.

Of course as far as I'm aware the Hokage Mountain is never depicted being anywhere near that big elsewhere in the series. Not at the beginning in Chapter 1, nor at the end in Chapter 700. We can see when characters stand atop the Hokage heads themselves, such as Minato standing atop his own head or all of the Hokage standing atop their heads. They're big, sure, but Arc7Kuroi's calc would make them several hundreds of meters tall which they consistently are not.

Art style shifts. Details change. But the size is never depicted like that.

That's just one landmark though, there is also the encircling wall around Konoha. We can get an idea of how thick the wall is from people standing on top of it and we have an idea of how tall the wall is roughly from comparing the thickness of the wall to its height. It's pretty big... but not what Arc7Kuroi's calc would suggest it to be, which would be 1600 meters by my estimate. An early establishing shot of the size of the gate in the wall doesn't show it being anywhere near that large, does it?

So even assuming that the forest in Arc7Kuroi's calc is the Forest of Death with a stated radius of 10 km, comparing it to any Konoha's other notable landmarks produces sizes that are wildly inconsistent with their depiction anywhere else in the series.

So if the calc isn't suitable for finding the size of any of Konoha's landmarks, why would it be suitable for finding the size of Konoha itself?

I've seen in the OP that Arc7Kuroi says this:



This argument is a little disingenuous to me - the idea that comparing one panel to another means that too much room for error has been introduced comparing to the method in the OP which uses a single panel and statement to find Konoha's radius. Since the whole purpose of having a size calc like this would be to use it for another panel where a feat occurs as I established earlier, then this would necessarily come with it the assumption that Kishimoto is staying consistent between multiple pages and panels. The method in the OP does not eliminate this.

I'm not denying that there is inherently going to be some variation in Konoha's size due to shifting art styles and compositions across the years-long series, but I've provided multiple scans up above showing that while there is variation the version from the OP is the least consistent out of all of them.

Having the simplest method isn't an overwhelming benefit if it produces a result that is massively different from everything else.

The OP also asserts that author intent trumps any other calcs that could be used since the panel used is an establishing shot from the first quarter of the series. But the more recent information presented to the audience by the author should almost certainly take priority over the earlier depictions; early details could be softly retconned out by how the artist's vision for the series changes over time. If a single early shot gives the impression of Konoha being 124 km across, but then multiple later shots contradict that... Why couldn't it be that the earlier shot is in error?

Bearing in mind the visuals up above that I shared which show the size of the hypothetical 124 km diameter village against cities like London and Tokyo.... Consider these various shots we get:

• Does it look likely that the wall on the far side of Konoha is 124 kilometers away here?
• How big would these walls have to be for the visible curvature of a circle with a circumference of 389.8 kilometers?
• How tall would these buildings be which we see in relation to the walls? Is every structure in Konoha bigger than the tallest building in our world?

This post ended up being longer than I anticipated but the point that I want to emphasize is that it doesn't solely matter if the calc uses a mathematically correct method with the right pixelscaling.... Our standards on this being allowable require the pixelscaled object (Konoha village) to be relatively constant in size. And my argument, backed up by scans throughout the entire series, is that it's not.


Apologies for the ping @LordTracer, @LordGriffin1000, @UchihaSlayer96, @Theglassman12 but could you tell me after looking at the OP and at my post, where the consistency is for Konoha village to be upgraded have a diameter of 124 kilometers?

Why not just calc the size of the walks from Karui’s team standing ontop and ang size distance to the other wall and call it a day?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I'm not going to worry about the first part of the rebuttal, since it boils down to an argument from incredulity, "can you guys really believe that Konoha is as big as London!?" These comparisons don't serve any purpose outside of rhetorically trying to sway the other staff via appealing to their disbelief. The actual argument of Damage's rebuttal centers around consistent portrayal of Konoha's size.

Damage's first gripe is that my calc makes the Rushmore Kage mountain 2.5 km tall. This doesn't provide any logical contradiction, there are several mountains irl that are 8+ km tall, and the irl Mount Rushmore is 1.7 km tall, not that different than Kage Rushmore. It being taller than the Burj Khalifa is again an attempt to appeal to the audience's disbelief, "isn't this number so huge guys it must be wrong" is what this amounts to. To throw some more reasonable statistics out there, google "heights of tall mountains" and you'll notice that Kage Rushmore being 2.5 km tall doesn't even put it in the top 100 tallest irl mountains, not even close.

Damage's next gripe is that nothing in Konoha is consistently portrayed as the size which my calc presumes. However, I already concede that the village is not consistently portrayed in size, and provided an argument in the OP as to why I do not believe that is an inherent defeater to my argument, and at worst would make it a partial rating.

Damage next calls my argument that utilizing less panel to panel shots to avoid error is disingenuous. However, Damage also concedes that scaling over multiple panels where the intent is not to display Konoha's size in its entirety is inherently more agregious in terms of error accrual than using a single panel that is intended to show off Konoha in its entirety in comparison to an object of author stated size. Damage didn't provide any argument to debunk my premise and merely repeated that the pixel scaling through inferior methods is not consistently the size my thread proposes.

I recognized that pixel scaling for Konoha is not the most consistent, and as such have provided interpretations with concessions to that notion. However, conceding that pixel scaling using inferior means is not consistent with my argument backed by canon information in the series is not a defeater to my abduction argument. I'm making a claim on likelihoods and Damage has not proved why his interpretation is more likely than mine to the point where my interpretation has negligible likelihood.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm not going to worry about the first part of the rebuttal, since it boils down to an argument from incredulity, "can you guys really believe that Konoha is as big as London!?" These comparisons don't serve any purpose outside of rhetorically trying to sway the other staff via appealing to their disbelief. The actual argument of Damage's rebuttal centers around consistent portrayal of Konoha's size.

I suspected that it would be labelled as an argument from incredulity but it is just to establish the consequences that arise from accepting a calculation such as this.

It's not just an arbitrary number applied to a distance here; it has implications that go beyond that. If you're going to assert that the radius of Konoha is 62 kilometers, then are you going to embrace the inevitable consequences of that which is that the village would have an area greater than some of the largest cities in the world? As I acknowledged in my post, this is not an inherent debunk.

What matters is that if you accept such a result, can that result be substantiated and shown to be consistent? If the radius or the area of Konoha is shown to be far smaller than that on other occasions, what implications can we garner from this?

Damage's first gripe is that my calc makes the Rushmore Kage mountain 2.5 km tall. This doesn't provide any logical contradiction, there are several mountains irl that are 8+ km tall, and the irl Mount Rushmore is 1.7 km tall, not that different than Kage Rushmore. It being taller than the Burj Khalifa is again an attempt to appeal to the audience's disbelief, "isn't this number so huge guys it must be wrong" is what this amounts to. To throw some more reasonable statistics out there, google "heights of tall mountains" and you'll notice that Kage Rushmore being 2.5 km tall doesn't even put it in the top 100 tallest irl mountains, not even close.

I may have been unclear in my post but my point in bringing that up was not to assert that there are no mountains as big as that....

It is to show that the figure you found does not match any other depiction of Hokage mountain at any other time in the manga. Nowhere else does it come close.

The fact that there are IRL mountains taller than that is a non-sequitur. Nobody brought that up.

Damage's next gripe is that nothing in Konoha is consistently portrayed as the size which my calc presumes. However, I already concede that the village is not consistently portrayed in size, and provided an argument in the OP as to why I do not believe that is an inherent defeater to my argument, and at worst would make it a partial rating.

Okay, and what would we use a partial rating for? You acknowledge that the village is not consistent, sure, but does that mean you don't believe there can be an outlier for it among all possible values?

If there was a method that could be found which would assert that the diameter of Konoha was 2000 kilometers, would that be valid to use too as a likely rating? If not, then what's the limit?

Damage next calls my argument that utilizing less panel to panel shots to avoid error is disingenuous. However, Damage also concedes that scaling over multiple panels where the intent is not to display Konoha's size in its entirety is inherently more agregious in terms of error accrual than using a single panel that is intended to show off Konoha in its entirety in comparison to an object of author stated size. Damage didn't provide any argument to debunk my premise and merely repeated that the pixel scaling through inferior methods is not consistently the size my thread proposes.

I recognized that pixel scaling for Konoha is not the most consistent, and as such have provided interpretations with concessions to that notion. However, conceding that pixel scaling using inferior means is not consistent with my argument backed by canon information in the series is not a defeater to my abduction argument. I'm making a claim on likelihoods and Damage has not proved why his interpretation is more likely than mine to the point where my interpretation has negligible likelihood.

What inferior methods exactly? The methods that I would use contian the exact same number of pixelscaling steps as you when it comes to the landmarks of Konoha.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I suspected that it would be labelled as an argument from incredulity but it is just to establish the consequences that arise from accepting a calculation such as this.

It's not just an arbitrary number applied to a distance here; it has implications that go beyond that. If you're going to assert that the radius of Konoha is 62 kilometers, then are you going to embrace the inevitable consequences of that which is that the village would have an area greater than some of the largest cities in the world? As I acknowledged in my post, this is not an inherent debunk.

What matters is that if you accept such a result, can that result be substantiated and shown to be consistent? If the radius or the area of Konoha is shown to be far smaller than that on other occasions, what implications can we garner from this?

Yeah Konoha being larger in surface area than IRL cities doesn't debunk my premise. As for the matter of consistency with other fan calcs that rely on depictions where the intent is not to display Konoha in its entirety, my premise already accounts for and acknowledges that. That's why I made an abductive argument rather than claiming Konoha is concretely 62 km in radius. So yes, my premise accepts the consequences.

I may have been unclear in my post but my point in bringing that up was not to assert that there are no mountains as big as that....

It is to show that the figure you found does not match any other depiction of Hokage mountain at any other time in the manga. Nowhere else does it come close.

The fact that there are IRL mountains taller than that is a non-sequitur. Nobody brought that up.

The only depictions of the Kage Rushmore mountain that you can say contradict my premise requires assumptive pixel scaling in which the village size is not the focal point of the image. My point about IRL mountains is just as much of a non-sequitur as you spending half your argument talking about London, Tokyo, and the Burj Khalifa.

Okay, and what would we use a partial rating for? You acknowledge that the village is not consistent, sure, but does that mean you don't believe there can be an outlier for it among all possible values?

Scaling with the partial rating.

What inferior methods exactly? The methods that I would use contian the exact same number of pixelscaling steps as you when it comes to the landmarks of Konoha.

None of them use a single panel. That shows the object in its entirety (Konoha) to an object of known size (FoD).

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah Konoha being larger in surface area than IRL cities doesn't debunk my premise. As for the matter of consistency with other fan calcs that rely on depictions where the intent is not to display Konoha in its entirety, my premise already accounts for and acknowledges that. That's why I made an abductive argument rather than claiming Konoha is concretely 62 km in radius. So yes, my premise accepts the consequences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Option A is?

If you're going to flat-out upgrade Konoha's size, then you'd be saying that the radius is concretely 62 km.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Option A is?

If you're going to flat-out upgrade Konoha's size, then you'd be saying that the radius is concretely 62 km.

Yes I acknowledged that people can be fine with it concretely, that they can be fine with a partial rating, and they can be fine with no rating. Did you read option B?

 

[Damage3245]

Yes I acknowledged that people can be fine with it concretely, that they can be fine with a partial rating, and they can be fine with no rating. Did you read option B?

It just seems like a contradiction to me. That you're not arguing for it to be concretely 62 km in radius but the very first option for the thread is for it to be concretely 62 km in radius.

I did see that there's the option for it to be "likely 62 km in radius" but the degree of likelihood hasn't been well-supported from what I've seen.

Having a method for finding the size of the village (even if you believe it to be a safe, reliable method) doesn't mean that you've found a likely size for it... You've found a possible size for it. Whether it's "likely" or "unlikely" depends on what else exists to support or contradict it.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

It just seems like a contradiction to me. That you're not arguing for it to be concretely 62 km in radius but the very first option for the thread is for it to be concretely 62 km in radius.

I did see that there's the option for it to be "likely 62 km in radius" but the degree of likelihood hasn't been well-supported from what I've seen.

Having a method for finding the size of the village (even if you believe it to be a safe, reliable method) doesn't mean that you've found a likely size for it... You've found a possible size for it. Whether it's "likely" or "unlikely" depends on what else exists to support or contradict it.

If I were a staff and had voting privileges I'd vote option B. But I'm not staff so it really doesn't matter in that regard. I agree with what I bolded, hence I made a thread arguing it has decent likelihood.

Edit: I provided options for people who held opinions different than mine...

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, fair enough. I'll put together a new post focusing more specifically on that then.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Bet, take your time too, there's no other Naruto threads open rn anyway.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Bet, take your time too, there's no other Naruto threads open rn anyway.

No active ones

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

You know what, I was dissing Deceived's thread, ngl I completely forgot about yours.

 

[Deceived3596]

You know what, I was dissing Deceived's thread, ngl I completely forgot about yours.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

You know what, I was dissing Deceived's thread, ngl I completely forgot about yours.

So did everyone

 

[SlendVeny]

So did everyone

I didn't.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah not really seeing how Konoha being compared to IRL locations would all of a sudden make the size of the locations by default wrong when Naruto doesn’t exist in our world to begin with. For all we know it could be larger, though the only thing I’d say have some merit from Damage’s side is the whole “konoha isn’t always consistent in size” argument.

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah not really seeing how Konoha being compared to IRL locations would all of a sudden make the size of the locations by default wrong when Naruto doesn’t exist in our world to begin with. For all we know it could be larger, though the only thing I’d say have some merit from Damage’s side is the whole “konoha is always consistent in size” argument.

Probably not the best thing to lead into my post with, I grant you, but illustrating just how big this calc would make Konoha is meant to put it in perspective exactly what we'd be accepting as a result of the calc. Personally I think it's worthwhile to consider "Does what is being drawn here match the size we calculate for it?"

For example if a pixelscaling calc gets us a size of a car to be 20 meters long (and it is supposed to be an ordinary car) I don't think it'd be wrong to say "Cars that look like this aren't typically anywhere near that size." It doesn't mean that a fictional car can't exist which is 20 meters long... but I'd certainly be wanting to verify the results.

If a three-storey building ends up being pixelscaled to be 500 meters tall; should we not bring up the point that this is an unusually large size for a building that from all other perspective only looks like it is three-storeys tall?

Since the more important argument is the consistency point though as you mentioned, I'll focus my next post more on that.

 

[Theglassman12]

Last time I checked we have both One Piece and Toriko’s world being far larger than our planet due to how big and scaled everything is, so again the whole “perspective” thing wouldn’t help. If this was based on our actual Earth with all the countries and whatnot then you’d have an argument, but Naruto’s world doesn’t really exist in ours, so we need to focus on what’s inconsistent with itself.

 

[KingogKings777]

Last time I checked we have both One Piece and Toriko’s world being far larger than our planet due to how big and scaled everything is, so again the whole “perspective” thing wouldn’t help. If this was based on our actual Earth with all the countries and whatnot then you’d have an argument, but Naruto’s world doesn’t really exist in ours, so we need to focus on what’s inconsistent with itself.

But they are in our SS and have Saturn so saying it's not our Earth is kinda weird.

Side note I don't know if this is important but how big are those walls? Since we have the canon size of Gamabunta which is 17 meters from the databook.