We investigated, using three comparisons, perceived size and perceived distance of targets seen from between the legs. Five targets, varying from 32 to 163 cm in height, were presented at viewing distances of 2.5–45 m, and a total of 90 observers verbally judged the perceived size and perceived distance of each target. In comparison 1, 15 observers inverted their heads upside down and saw the targets between their own legs; another 15 observers viewed them while being erect on the ground. The results showed that inverting the head lowered the degree of size constancy and compressed the scale for distance. To examine whether these results were due to an inversion of retinal-image or body orientation, comparisons 2 and 3 were performed. In comparison 2, 15 observers stood upright and saw the targets with prism goggles that rotated the visual field 180°, while other 15 observers stood upright, but viewed the targets with a hollow frame lacking the prisms. The results showed that, in both goggle conditions, size constancy prevailed and perceived distance was a linear function of physical distance. In comparison 3, 15 observers wore the 180° rotation goggles and viewed the targets by bending their heads forwardly, and the other 15 observers viewed them while wearing hollow goggles and lying on the belly. The results showed a low degree of size constancy and compressed the scale for distance. Therefore, it is suggested that perceived size and perceived distance are affected by an inversion of body orientation, not of retinal image orientation. When path analysis and partial correlation analysis were applied to the whole data, perceived size was found to be independent of perceived distance. These results supported the direct perception model, rather than the apparent distance model.