When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes
The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.
But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.
The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!
Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.
BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.
Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?
Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?
So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.
Thank you for your time.
Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.
And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.
So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.
hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.
I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe
Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.
The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?
On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.
Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?
Actually, Mr. Godot!!
Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…
If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!
Aah… these M&M’s droplets
So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!
the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*
I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!
This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s… The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.
This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.
It is clearly a fraud!
You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.
To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..
With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!
Hold it right there everyone.
A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.
I cannot, not reblog this. It is amazing!
OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.
Say what you will, but this is by far the greatest post on tumblr.
Q:you and frenums are my otp
Faber Castell’s 250 Year Anniversary (1761-2011) Art & Graphic Case
tag your porn assholes
This is so fucking arousing…
On last night’s Daily Show, Jason Jones enlisted the help of a hostage negotiator to try and end the government shutdown.
Click here to watch.
The only solution is beating the dumb out of all these politicians.
I know how that sounds, but there is NO OTHER SOLUTION.
OR you know, America can have another revolution…
Creepy Halloween costumes c. 1930s-1960s
Because Halloween isn’t about wearing sexy outfits.
Once photographing meant a large box camera on a tripod, shifting film plate after each shot - and working with a dark cloth over your head and the camera.
But then something happened…
Science enthusiasm in kids and teenagers, more two stories of year 2012 | Picture edited via Sci-Tech
Clara Lazen is the discoverer of tetranitratoxycarbon, a molecule constructed of, obviously, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon. It’s got some interesting possible properties, ranging from use as an explosive to energy storage. Lazen is listed as the co-author of a recent paper on the molecule. But that’s not what’s so interesting and inspiring about this story. What’s so unusual here is that Clara Lazen is a ten-year-old fifth-grader in Kansas City, MO.
Kenneth Boehr, Clara’s science teacher, handed out the usual ball-and-stick models used to visualize simple molecules to his fifth-grade class. But Clara put the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms together in a particular complex way and asked Boehr if she’d made a real molecule. Boehr, to his surprise, wasn’t sure. So he photographed the model and sent it over to a chemist friend at Humboldt State University who identified it as a wholly new but also wholly viable chemical.Sixteen-year-old Azza Abdel Hamid Faiad has found that an inexpensive catalyst could be used to create $78 million worth of biofuel each year. Egypt’s plastic consumption is estimated to total one million tons per year, so Azza’s proposal could transform the country’s economy, allowing it to make money from recycled plastic.What Azza proposes is to break down the plastic polymers found in drinks bottles and general waste and turn them into biofuel feedstock. (This is the bulk raw material that generally used for producing biofuel.) It should be noted that this is not a particularly new idea, but what makes Azza stand out from the crowd is the catalyst that she is proposing. She says that she has found a high-yield catalyst called aluminosilicate, that will break down plastic waste and also produce gaseous products like methane, propane and ethane, which can then be converted into ethanol.
Speaking about the breakthrough, Azza said that the technology could “provide an economically efficient method for production of hydrocarbon fuel” including 40,000 tons per year of cracked naptha and 138,000 tons of hydrocarbon gasses – the equivalent of $78 million in biofuel.
Knowing how Egypt can be, I sincerely hope Azza gets out of there, because they will suck the life out of her for being a woman.
When you go to a haunted house, it may seem like you’re being funny by trying to scare the actors or jump out at them when you go through a second time, but guess what? ITS NOT FUNNY.
You pay us to scare you. It is your choice to go, so don’t fucking go through if you’re going to ignore the rules and get too close to the actors as a ‘joke’.
These bruises happened because over the course of 4 hours, several people ignored the instructions that CLEARLY stated that they were to wait in the front room until told otherwise. Rather than listen, they ran into the next room and slammed into me- effectively throwing me into the wall. This didn’t only happen once. It happened ten times at LEAST.
Then we had this asshole who thought that once I ‘died’ for the haunt, he could pretend to kick me to see if I’d moved. I, being used to people abusing me- jumped back and slammed my head into the concrete wall.
YOU ARE NOT FUNNY BY BEING RUDE AT A HAUNTED HOUSE. WE ARE PAID ACTORS THAT YOU CHOOSE TO COME AND SEE PERFORM. YOU PAY US TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, SO DONT HIT US WHEN WE DO
I feel that this is relevant considering it is October and more Haunted Houses are opening up. I know it seems funny to scare the ‘monsters’ but all you do is hurt real people. So stop.
I don’t have bruises this bad, but I’ve had men attempt to reach for me, grab at me, leer at me. A coworker had a man grab her tits because her character wears a slip. Another coworker had a man follow her into her little scare spot thinking he had her cornered to hit on her while his friends cheered him on, not knowing the back wall was a curtain where she could duck out and get security. I’ve had a woman open a water bottle and happily throw water at every actor that tried to scare her, been called a fucking bitch, a cunt, told I’m ugly , and had a boy who can’t be older than seventh grade shout “Suck my dick, whore!”
Even if you don’t do any of the things above, here is what is just as fucking disrespectful to the people who YOU HAVE PAID MONEY TO SCARE YOU:
1. DO NOT JUMP FORWARD AT THE ACTORS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SCARE THE ACTORS. THEY ARE NOT SCARED. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
2. DO NOT SCREAM IN THE ACTORS FACES OR WAG YOUR TONGUES IN AN IMITATION OF WHAT YOU THINK WE LOOK LIKE. WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY YOUR ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH DOMINANCE IN THE MAZE YOU HAVE PAID MONEY TO VISIT. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
3. DO NOT SHOUT THAT PERFORMERS ARE HOT OR ASK FOR PHONE NUMBERS. YOU ARE NOT CONFIDENT OR ATTRACTIVE. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE
4. DO NOT GET SCARED, GET ANGRY, AND ATTEMPT TO SHOVE BACK, PUFF OUT YOUR CHEST AT, AGGRESSIVELY MAKE ANGRY EYE CONTACT WITH A PERFORMER. NO ONE IS IMPRESSED BY YOUR MANLINESS/BADASS BITCHNESS. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
And most important of all:
5. ACTORS IN A HAUNTED HOUSE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. THEY ARE NOT ROBOTS OR ZOMBIES OR VAMPIRES OR WHAT THE FUCK EVER. THEY ARE PEOPLE AND THEY CAN BE SERIOUSLY INJURED. THEY ARE NOT PUNCHING BAGS. THIS IS NOT A MOVIE.
People can be just pure evil. Sorry you have to go through this.