RWBY Volume 8 CRT - First Half

[Keeweed]

“And they are 20 stories tall as per two different calcs calculating their height from two different scenes. On top of both WoG and the official guide stating that they are several stories tall.”

RWBY: Big Boy Goliaths

vsbattles.fandom.com

According to you in this blog it was the makers of the show that said the creatures are twenty stories tall. Meanwhile everyone proceeded to reject that in the comments of this blog. If there is another calculation that is accepted then it would be good to see (hopefully that doesn’t come off as rude, I mean I actually want to see the other calc because the only one I can find rejected 20 story tall Goliaths hard).


I don’t know how to post photos, can someone please explain it so I can post a photo of the scan of Coco saying the worms size because Coco constantly sounded completely bewildered trying to explain the worm and thinks of it as a ‘something’ and a ‘worm thingy’ literally right before see tries to describe its size.

Also adult Nevermores also vary in size so they aren’t a good basis for a size calc anyways.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I highly doubt that going by your arguments but whatever. The blind worm calc yields a result of almost identical size to the goliaths being 20 stories tall when a method that uses weiss as height scaling instead of the goliaths and nevermore is divided by 6, the stated number of goliaths long the blind worm is. This on top of the guidebook flat out stating that goliaths are multiple stories tall as well as a goliath's foot alone being the size of a house.

Nevermores do not vary in size other than being 15 meters or larger. Anything less than that is consistently referred to as a chick and there is no way she would be able to accurately gagu something being that small from miles away like she did with the blind worm.

 

[Keeweed]

The Weiss calc relies on a game that 1) I’m not even sure is canon, and 2) if it is canon it shoots the Nevermore width in the foot, because the worm is clearly barely wider than Weiss in the photo you used for your calc.

Edit: I just rechecked the photo. Weiss’ height is larger than the worm’s width.

Also give me a minute. I’m going to type out the paragraph used for the worm’s size statement because the first half of the paragraph makes it very clear the narrator is unreliable.

 

[Keeweed]

“Something leaped out of the small cloud-a long black spiky worm thing, ...

So, not blind, then. But it was the largest Grimm she had ever seen... (this is where the size is described, we have all seen this quote)”

So as we can see, the person narrating this paragraph doesn’t know what this thing is. She is completely bewildered by its appearance and misunderstands basic facts about it. Why should I trust her statements on its size when she didn’t even know it was a worm half a second ago.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The Weiss calc relies on a game that 1) I’m not even sure is canon, and 2) if it is canon it shoots the Nevermore width in the foot, because the worm is clearly barely wider than Weiss in the photo you used for your calc.

Also give me a minute. I’m going to type out the paragraph used for the worm’s size statement because the first half of the paragraph makes it very clear the narrator is unreliable.

1. Its secondary canon but it is the only visual depiction of the Blind Worm that we have

2. And? We're scaling the Blind Worm up massively given the size of it in the novel + the fact that you only see half of the Blind Worm in-game as the there half is underground

“Something leaped out of the small cloud-a long black spiky worm thing, ...

So, not blind, then. But it was the largest Grimm she had ever seen... (this is where the size is described, we have all seen this quote)”

So as we can see, the person narrating this paragraph doesn’t know what this thing is. She is completely bewildered by its appearance and misunderstands basic facts about it. Why should I trust her statements on its size when she didn’t even know it was a worm half a second ago.

Blind Worms are called Blind Worms because they use blindsiding tactics to attack thing not because they are literally blind

And you should trust her because unlike the Blind Worm she has canonically fought nevermores and goliaths and knows how big they are and thus can make an accurate comparison of their size

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

See the problem you guys are ignoring is the fact that coco has only ever fought full grown and giant nevermore, if she was talking about it being smaller she would have made the comparison to the bird sized to human sized Ravagers she fought in the books

"Yes, a huntress-in-training who has received lectures on Grimm for years only knows of a single Nevermore size"

We know Grimm have variable size, it'd be extremely silly to say this basic fact about any Grimm is something Coco isn't aware of too. She could be thinking of any range of sizes of Nevermore and you need to prove she's talking about the massive one you've still yet to cite.

This on top of the guidebook flat out stating that goliaths are multiple stories tall as well as a goliath's foot alone being the size of a house.

The largest size we see for Goliaths calced (7 stories) with the same method you used (which highballed speed to ridiculous degrees) only gave 9-A results. 20-story tall Goliaths were contradicted in the same shot the directors were commentating on, and the calc using that figure was rejected multiple times over and shouldn't even be brought up.

Nevermores do not vary in size other than being 15 meters or larger. Anything less than that is consistently referred to as a chick and there is no way she would be able to accurately gagu something being that small from miles away like she did with the blind worm.

This isn't > 15 meters, neither is this one, or this one. This one doesn't look that particularly big either. Hell, look at the calc history of the single Giant Nevermore for a reference of how that thing shifted sizes in the same exact action shots, concept art, and posters. The idea that "Nevermores don't vary in size" is extremely silly. We also know for a fact that Grimm grow larger and stronger over time, Nevermore chicks don't suddenly decide to be 15 meters large, they gradually grow to be that big.

Also prove that anything below 15 meters specifically is a chick. If you want to use specific figures like that include evidence.

1. Its secondary canon but it is the only visual depiction of the Blind Worm that we have

Okay, and? What says the artists/directors for a completely different team in the game have exactly the same conception of body proportions as the author of After the Fall?

It's not a Grimm that's shown in the main series so there's no "canon" reference for either author to go off of.

 

[Keeweed]

Goliaths and Nevermore vary in size, even if you want to argue they don’t vary much they still do vary so there sizes are inconsistent. When you have the character not even know the thing was a worm literally within the same paragraph how can I trust their size comparison they came up with from a glance. Knowing the size of other creatures doesn’t mean she’ll accurately know the size of a new creature that was completely bewildering her seconds earlier.

“And? We're scaling the Blind Worm up massively given the size of it in the novel + the fact that you only see half of the Blind Worm in-game as the there half is underground”

Can you rephrase that. What do you mean you are scaling the worm up massively. If you are calculating it size in comparison to Weiss then you should compare its width to Weiss. The photo you use for the size comparison clearly shows the worm is not as wide as Weiss’ height, so it can’t be as wide an Nevermore. Are you getting its width and height from two completely different sources and smashing them together or am I just misreading your statement?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Goliaths and Nevermore vary in size, even if you want to argue they don’t vary much they still do vary so there sizes are inconsistent.

Their sizes are not inconsistent, they have a canon average size which is what we are basing it off of. If we were using the size of the giant nevermore from volume 1 then i would agree with you but we're not.

When you have the character not even know the thing was a worm literally within the same paragraph how can I trust their size comparison they came up with from a glance. Knowing the size of other creatures doesn’t mean she’ll accurately know the size of a new creature that was completely bewildering her seconds earlier.

Because you can know that something is big without knowing what ****** species it is. Seriously what kind of weird logic is this? Coco isnt enough of an idiot to not know something big is big. And yes actually it does as she is able to make an accurate comparison of how big it is compared to other big grimm she has already fought.

Can you rephrase that. What do you mean you are scaling the worm up massively. If you are calculating it size in comparison to Weiss then you should compare its width to Weiss. The photo you use for the size comparison clearly shows the worm is not as wide as Weiss’ height, so it can’t be as wide an Nevermore. Are you getting its width and height from two completely different sources and smashing them together or am I just misreading your statement?

What i mean is the worm in the novel is canonically immensely bigger than the one in the game so it is upscaled accordingly.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Their sizes are not inconsistent, they have a canon average size which is what we are basing it off of. If we were using the size of the giant nevermore from volume 1 then i would agree with you but we're not.

Cite the canon average size. Something saying "Nevermores are, on average this big". Like you keep on saying this without substantiating it.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

This is the canon average size of a nevermore. Nevermores smaller than this are consistently referred to as chicks.

 

[Keeweed]

“Because you can know that something is big without knowing what ****** species it is. Seriously what kind of weird logic is this? Coco isnt enough of an idiot to not know something big is big. And yes actually it does as she is able to make an accurate comparison of how big it is compared to other big grimm she has already fought.”

There a different between knowing something’s species, and not knowing literally anything about it a couple seconds earlier. She glanced at a thing and made a guesstimate and I’m supposed to 100% believe that with absolute certainty.

Your assuming her guess is accurate, she could have been completely wrong. She literally just saw this thing and was bewildered by it throughout the entire rest of the paragraph.

 

[Keeweed]

This is the canon average size of a nevermore. Nevermores smaller than this are consistently referred to as chicks.

That photo doesn’t load for me (once again hopefully that doesn’t come off as rude, I just meant to give you a heads up)

 

[WeeklyBattles]

There a different between knowing something’s species, and not knowing literally anything about it a couple seconds earlier. She glanced at a thing and made a guesstimate and I’m supposed to 100% believe that with absolute certainty.

Your assuming her guess is accurate, she could have been completely wrong. She literally just saw this thing and was bewildered by it throughout the entire rest of the paragraph.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is wrong. Not that she is unreliable, prove that she was wrong.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

This is the canon average size of a nevermore. Nevermores smaller than this are consistently referred to as chicks.

Link is broken, also this is still you just saying it's the "canon average size" and not you giving anything definitively telling us it's the average.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is wrong. Not that she is unreliable, prove that she was wrong.

lol, no. You're the one trying to give evidence that she's correct, if the evidence is faulty/unreliable the burden is totally on you.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

That photo doesn’t load for me (once again hopefully that doesn’t come off as rude, I just meant to give you a heads up)

Does this?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Link is broken, also this is still you just saying it's the "canon average size" and not you giving anything definitively telling us it's the average.

I uploaded a new one.

lol, no. You're the one trying to give evidence that she's correct, if the evidence is faulty/unreliable the burden is totally on you.

lol no. I do not have to prove a negative. I have already givn ample evidence as to why her description is accurate, it is on you and keeweed to prove that the worm is not as large as coco said.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

When the **** did we adopt the standard of 'you have to prove both the positive and negative of your argument otherwise youre wrong'?

 

[Keeweed]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is wrong. Not that she is unreliable, prove that she was wrong.

If I go up to a random person on the street and ask them the size of a random nearby car. I don’t automatically assume they are correct, especially when that person didn’t even know it was a car before I asked them the question.

They are not qualified to answer the question. You absolutely should prove that a person, who just glanced a creature she doesn’t understand, is making an accurate guesstimate of their size, not the other way around.

What’s the proof she is wrong? The fact that she doesn’t even know what she is describing. How can you accurately describe something if you are clearly bewildered by it within the same paragraph. She called it the equivalent of a something thingy and I’m supposed to believe her with zero doubt?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I uploaded a new one.

Still doesn't work.

When the **** did we adopt the standard of 'you have to prove both the positive and negative of your argument otherwise youre wrong'?

idk how any of that relates to "your evidence has a faulty premise and an unreliable narrator". Just because you post evidence doesn't mean it's flawless and needs more flawless evidence to outweigh it.

Like if I go to a research institute, court, or amateur debate chamber with a study that wasn't based on reliable evidence, had that rejected because the evidence wasn't reliable, and was like "okay disprove me with reliable evidence then" I'd be laughed out of the room.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

If I go up to a random person on the street and ask them the size of a random nearby car. I don’t automatically assume they are correct, especially when that person didn’t even know it was a car before I asked them the question.

They are not qualified to answer the question. You absolutely should prove that a person, who just glanced a creature she doesn’t understand, is making an accurate guesstimate of their size, not the other way around.

What’s the proof she is wrong? The fact that she doesn’t even know what she is describing. How can you accurately describe something if you are clearly bewildered by it within the same paragraph. She called it the equivalent of a something thingy and I’m supposed to believe her with zero doubt?

Thatis not an accurate comparison. The correct comparison would be asking a mechanic who hasbeen working on cars his entire life to give an estimate of the size of a car as that is what coco is, she has fought against these monsters all her life, she is not just some rando who has never fought a grimm before.

Yes, what is the proof she is wrong. You need to provide proof that she was wrong about the size of the creature to disprove the size of it. You can accurately describe the size of something while being bewhildered by it by comparing it to other things you have seen before that are comparable to it in size.

You need to give some form of reasoning to be able to cast doubt that goes beyond 'she didnt know whatspecies of grimm it was'

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Gotta agree with Dargoo and Keeweed on the topic of the Grimm calcs

 

[Keeweed]

One of my friends came over, I’ll be back soon.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Still doesn't work.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/File:Volume_4_Nevermore-1-.jpg

idk how any of that relates to "your evidence has a faulty premise and an unreliable narrator". Just because you post evidence doesn't mean it's flawless and needs more flawless evidence to outweigh it.

Like if I go to a research institute, court, or amateur debate chamber with a study that wasn't based on reliable evidence, had that rejected because the evidence wasn't reliable, and was like "okay disprove me with reliable evidence then" I'd be laughed out of the room.

It also needs evidence to disprove it which you have yet to post, all youve done to all the arguments against you is say 'no' and you expect people to believe you

Good thing the argument being posed has ample evidence whereas the counterargument is just subjective statements

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I am with Dargoo too.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Gotta agree with Dargoo and Keeweed on the topic of the Grimm calcs

fankly that does not mater, they are factuallywrong regardless of whether or not you believe thm

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I am with Dargoo too.

See the above statement

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Until actual evidence countering the worm's size is presented the agreement with dargoo and keeweed is effectively null

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/File:Volume_4_Nevermore-1-.jpg

Still doesn't work.

It also needs evidence to disprove it which you have yet to post, all youve done to all the arguments against you is say 'no' and you expect people to believe you

Good thing the argument being posed has ample evidence whereas the counterargument is just subjective statements

We're debating if you sufficiently proved it in the the first place. You're assuming that you have proven it to begin with for your arguments. Keeweed has all the right and the ability to question if your evidence proves your claim - they do not need to assume you are correct by default and progress from there.

So yes, if they find a flaw with the evidence provided you should respond to that point. That can either be with more evidence or you can explain flaws with their argument.

Ironically, the evidence being used here is literally a subjective statement from Coco about variable-sized grimm being taken like a strict measurement.

fankly that does not mater, they are factuallywrong regardless of whether or not you believe thm

How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously with remarks like this? I don't think you're "factually wrong", there's practically nothing objective about this, it's a book statement from a fictional series.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Still doesn't work.

God i hate this new forum's image posting issues. How about this?

We're debating if you sufficiently proved in the the first place. You're assuming that you have proven it to begin with for your arguments. Keeweed has all the right and the ability to question if your evidence proves your claim - they do not need to assume you are correct by default and progress from there.

I have sufficiently proven it. I have given a dozen scans to support my argument as well as canon feats and logical deductions including further evidence as to why coco is not wrong in her analysis that all support my argument. Keeweed has the right to do that but he has yet to do so beyond just saying 'no' and people jumping on the bandwagon.

So yes, if they find a flaw with the evidence provided you should respond to that point. That can either be with more evidence or you can explain flaws with their argument.

If thy find one then they are free to do so but thus far no flaw has been found that has not already been explained into being a non-issue.

Ironically, the evidence being used here is literally a subjective statement.

Its really not, it is a visual description backed up by later statements and canon descriptions

How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously with remarks like this?

They tak your argument seriously even though you make statements like it, i figured i'd try your method of debating and maybe people will agree with me.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

God i hate this new forum's image posting issues. How about this?

Doesn't say anything about this being the average, which is your claim, so that's still not proven.

I have sufficiently proven it. I have given a dozen scans to support my argument as well as canon feats and logical deductions including further evidence as to why coco is not wrong in her analysis that all support my argument. Keeweed has the right to do that but he has yet to do so beyond just saying 'no' and people jumping on the bandwagon.

You made a calc that re-arranged dialogue / described it out of context to make it sound like a speed statement was given.

You assumed no hollowness for a worm with large cavities of air inside of it.

You're trying to argue that Coco can't conceive of different sizes for Nevermores besides this one specific scan despite you conceding Nevermores on-screen like the Giant Nevermore have inconsistent size in the same action shots, various examples including images from World of Remnant showing smaller sizes, exposition and various examples of other Grimm getting larger with age.

With the above in mind, you're saying Coco can make an accurate assessment of size to the degree of decimeters given how far away she was, among other issues explained by Keeweed.

You're trying to argue that a visual artist for a questionable-canon game and the author of After the Fall conceived of the same exact body proportions for this Grimm that has never appeared in the show proper.

I can tell that I'm debating a brick wall here, but this is just a summary of the issues with the calc for the people reading this. Calc members such as @Wokistan who have vetted previous calcs like this can look over these complaints if they'd like, and go through this discussion for more context on the issues with the calc.

 

[Thestrikingzebra]

I’m with weekly but haven’t you considered that perhaps the reason the goliaths are smaller than they are stated to be is because of animation? Talking as someone who has a somewhat good foray into animation, and especially considering how Vols 1-3 are, it would make sense that they would be smaller on screen for the sake of it looking better.

Imagine seeing them being of actual size instead of what the animation has portrayed them to be. It wouldn’t look satisfying and cause the animation to have a weird flow that makes it look bad.

 

[Kingofwolves999]

I’m with weekly but haven’t you considered that perhaps the reason the goliaths are smaller than they are stated to be is because of animation? Talking as someone who has a somewhat good foray into animation, and especially considering how Vols 1-3 are, it would make sense that they would be smaller on screen for the sake of it looking better.

Imagine seeing them being of actual size instead of what the animation has portrayed them to be. It wouldn’t look satisfying and cause the animation to have a weird flow that makes it look bad.

So we should inflate a calc because the RWBY crew said a size that they couldn't actually live up to in canon? We just speculate that what they intended is how things should be, just because they decided to cut corners or failed to convey it? That's not anyone's fault but their own. No goliath, from early volumes to current volumes, have been 20 stories tall, so that statement holds no weight.

What is actually happening is more important than what the authors intend. They are blatantly wrong about the size of goliaths, so their word doesn't matter in this case, especially since the RWBY crew are KNOWN to be a mess when it comes to statements, scaling, feats and even just the basic structure of their story.

 

[Thestrikingzebra]

Shrugs Just saying. Still something we should take into consideration. I’m not really convinced on either of the points really.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

That isn't the problem. And you don't know that. Regardless they can vary besides being "big", "medium", and "small".

No actually, in the case of nevermores it doesnt, they are canonically either big or small due to their rapid growth rate

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Community_Gamer The fact that youre just spam liking every argument against me really shows that you have not read anything they are saying and are justmindlessly agreeing to be against me as they have not posted any evidence to counter a single thing i have said

 

[Community_Gamer]

@Community_Gamer The fact that youre just spam liking every argument against me really shows that you have not read anything they are saying and are justmindlessly agreeing to be against me as they have not posted any evidence to counter a single thing i have said

Weekly I didn't like every one. And I deleted the comment that I just made because I didn't know there was another page before I sent it.

I read every single comment actually, that's why I'd said anything until now....like I always do.

Now I was going to direct this conversation in a more favorable position for everyone (which includes you) but now I am slightly tempted to ride your ass for that idiotic and vaccious provocation you just made. Though that's not going to help anyone. I'll let it go. Though I do find it interesting that when I've gone through and liked several of your posts and you mine...why nothing was said then? Odd.

As I was going to say. Weekly since this conversation hasn't really progressed much. Can you just provide a coherent formal argument for why Coco would being to X Nevermore as the average size? I don't know if you want to continue on the Goliath side but there's that.

[Though I see little point since we don't have a speed]

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Doesn't say anything about this being the average, which is your claim, so that's still not proven.

It is proven yes, that is the average size

You made a calc that re-arranged dialogue / described it out of context to make it sound like a speed statement was given.

Not really? I flat out posted the entire page of dialogue in the blog so that full context was given

You assumed no hollowness for a worm with large cavities of air inside of it.

I did account for hollowness and i love how overexaggerated the cavity inside the Blind Worm is where Coco immediately after being swallowed by it described it as being cramped and hard to move in

You're trying to argue that Coco can't conceive of different sizes for Nevermores besides this one specific scan despite you conceding Nevermores on-screen like the Giant Nevermore have inconsistent size in the same action shots,

No? The Giant Nevermore doesnt have an inconsistent size, its a puppet rig it is one size, its not capable of being varying sizes in the same shot.

various examples including images from World of Remnant showing smaller sizes, exposition and various examples of other Grimm getting larger with age.

Ah yes the artistic styling of the World of Remnant, very accurate indeed, though its rather funny that (since im the only one posting evidence here apparently) the nevermore in the World of Remnant is consistent with the size of the canon depiction of the average Nevermore.

As per the guidebook, Nevermores canonically grow extremely rapidly, they dont take time to grow like other species of grimm.

With the above in mind, you're saying Coco can make an accurate assessment of size to the degree of decimeters given how far away she was, among other issues explained by Keeweed.

The issues with no backing other than 'she didnt know what species it is so she must not be able to see at all', so yes, i am saying that Coco, a person who has been fighting Grimm since childhood and has years of experience canonically explicitly fighting larger Grimm due to her semblance making her be able to take them down easier and who in the same novel was shown to have fought goliaths and large-sized nevermores, can make an accurate assessment of size of the worm.

You're trying to argue that a visual artist for a questionable-canon game and the author of After the Fall conceived of the same exact body proportions for this Grimm that has never appeared in the show proper.

I mean youre trying to argue the same thing for the World of Remnant video my guy, and the visual artist for the game is a visual artist for the show in china so...

So we should inflate a calc because the RWBY crew said a size that they couldn't actually live up to in canon? We just speculate that what they intended is how things should be, just because they decided to cut corners or failed to convey it? That's not anyone's fault but their own. No goliath, from early volumes to current volumes, have been 20 stories tall, so that statement holds no weight.

Funny how if this were any other verse it would be described as 'accurate' rather than 'inflated' given the overwhelming evidence supporting the Goliaths being that size with the only arguments against them being 'they dont look that big so they must not be'.

What is actually happening is more important than what the authors intend. They are blatantly wrong about the size of goliaths, so their word doesn't matter in this case, especially since the RWBY crew are KNOWN to be a mess when it comes to statements, scaling, feats and even just the basic structure of their story.

Bad writing does not discredit word of god my guy

 

[Community_Gamer]

Btw I don't think you can logic argue against author intention. Regardless if it creates a contradiction or not. Not super relevant, just thought I'd share that

 

[Keeweed]

I’ll be back tomorrow (it is midnight where I live and my friend is still with me). I already typed out a lot of what I want to say, but I won’t be able to continue the conversation, so I’m saving it for tomorrow.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Community_Gamer

Weekly I didn't like every one. And I deleted the comment that I just made because I didn't know there was another page before I sent it.

I read every single comment actually, that's why I'd said anything until now....like I always do.

Now I was going to direct this conversation in a more favorable position for everyone (which includes you) but now I am slightly tempted to ride your ass for that idiotic and vaccious provocation you just made. Though that's not going to help anyone. I'll let it go. Though I do find it interesting that when I've gone through and liked several of your posts and you mine...why nothing was said then? Odd.

Because i wasnt wrong then, just like i am not wrong now.

As I was going to say. Weekly since this conversation hasn't really progressed much. Can you just provide a coherent formal argument for why Coco would being to X Nevermore as the average size? I don't know if you want to continue on the Goliath side but there's that.

Nevermores canonically only have two sizes, small and large, due to their extremely fast growth rate. Nevermores are canonically and consistently shown to have a similar size to each other when they are matured. Coco was never shown to have ever fought a nevermore chick at any point in time and even if she had encountered one it is unlikely that there would have been a fight as Nevermore chicks are the size of birds and flee instead of fight, whereas she has fought mature nevermores in the show as well as seen them up close. As per the novel coco has seen a Goliath up close and thus knows its size as well as the implication that she knew what a Goliath was beforehand given her reaction. Believing that she was using a juvenile nevermore's size for reference makes little to no sense as from miles away it would have been borderline invisible and going by the depiction of the Blind Worms we have it would be flat out impossible as Blind Worms are shown to grow both longer and wider as they age, with a mature Blind Worm already having a body thickness that surpasses the wingspan of a juvenile Nevermore. In addition there are numerous grimm that are smaller than a mature nevermore that could have had a comparison made if she was not talking about a mature nevermore, such as a death stalker, a petra gigas, hell even a king taijitu, but she did not use them as a comparison, she specifically name dropped a nevermore.

I'll gladly argue for the Goliaths as well. first thing i want to point out is that the result of the current calc, which does not use the 20 story goliaths as a reference and scales solely from weiss and the nevermore, perfectly comes out to the length of six 6/7 story tall Goliaths, consistent with the Goliaths as they were portrayed in the show. There is also the fact that the Blind Worm's length is bare minimum twice as long as the height of the 100 foot tall Flatback Slider.

Currently the singlular argument that is being used and for some reason supported in opposition of using this is Coco calling the Blind Worm a 'worm thingy' which somehow under some bizzare logic takes away all of her years of experience against giant grimm and literally her ability to see all because she didnt immediately identify the species of grimm the blind worm was despite identifying it seconds later.

Also we do have an approximate speed as it was able to travel from the horizon to Team CFVY in ~5-10 minutes and was moving fast enough to create a sandstorm in its wake.