うぉーん! ♪ @musicxdoll - Tumblr Blog

ITS BEEN A WHILE…The last time I drew Nick and Maya together was 2 years ago!! I barely draw them now even though they were the ONLY things I used to draw in the previous years, but drawing them again together like this really takes me back. Capcom we miss them!!

angelnamine

hiyachis-deactivated20161226

Nuni's Recommendations: ▋Must Read Manga [1/?] - Kyou no Kira Kun　(2011 - 2014)

miravariable

i noticed there’s a severe lack of quark fanart, so i decided to fix that

orcusivanth

zero escape 3 was announced today and its the best thing to ever happen to me cause its my fav game series

tinycartridge

Zero Escape 3 coming to 3DS, Vita next summer! ⊟

The longest night will have an end! After a number of challenges threatening to leave the trilogy that brought us Virtue’s Last Reward and 999 incomplete, series director and writer Kotaro Uchikoshi announced that Zero Escape 3 will finally release in summer 2016. It’s coming to both 3DS and PS Vita

North American publisher Aksys sent out the following memo indicating the follow-up will offer “familiar faces, fully voiced cinematics, multiple endings, [and] voices in both Japanese and English”:

Seguir leyendo

loopsee

I’d like to think that if Sasuke really has been gone for about a decade, Sakura would’ve somehow sent him photos of Sarada growing up over the years, and he would’ve kept them all.

Haha, wishful thinking.

#uchihasasuke #uchihasarada #naruto

lawlliets

kiyoharus

Some of Yamato’s animations from Sweet Cafe.

lntellectual

愛され奥さま編：佐伯

There’s a cute end and a wild end.

sayorkunau

mccrushington

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

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 blue, 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!

starpyrate

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.

chaoticyetstupid

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.

starpyrate

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

aetropos

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?

Rather unlikely!

notdaredevil2-blog

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!

bobisokkusu

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*

yeahyeahno

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.

Therefore…

It is clearly a fraud!

aetropos

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!