Gjessing har tolket det motsatt; at

Gjessing har tolket det motsatt; at bakstoffet har smalnet inn fra livet og ned. Jeg kan imidlertid ikke forstå hvorfor han har tolket det slik, selv med K1 feilplassert. Det er ingenting som tyder på at bakstoffet her har smalnet inn. Splitten midt bak er i hvert fall skåret trådrett så lenge denne kan følges, og avstanden fra splitten til kile A holder seg på 21 cm hele veien.

Resultater (engelsk) 1:

Gjessing along has interpreted it the opposite; that behind the drug has narrowed from the waist down. However, I cannot understand why he has interpreted it this way, even with K1 misplaced. There is nothing to suggest that behind the drug here has narrowed. The split mid back is at least cut as long as this trådrett can be followed, and the distance from slit to wedge A remains at 21 cm all the way.

Resultater (engelsk) 2:

Gjessing have interpreted the opposite; that bakstoffet has narrowed from the waist down. However, I can not understand why he has interpreted it that way, even with K1 misplaced. There is nothing to suggest that bakstoffet here has narrowed into. Slit at center back is at least cut line straight while this can be followed, and the distance from the slit to wedge A remains at 21 cm throughout.

Resultater (engelsk) 3:

Gjessing has interpreted the opposite; that bakstoffet has smalnet from life and down. However, i can not understand why he has interpreted it that way, even with K1 misplaced. There is nothing to indicate that bakstoffet here have smalnet inn. Dichotomy at the back is in each case, cut trådrett as long as this can be followed, and the distance from dichotomy to wedge A stays at 21 cm all the way.