elegantfeatherduster:

marielikestodraw:

fuckyesdeadpool:

image

Deadpool Annual #1

what…

Genuinely not even sure how to tag this, okay,

jamalas:

this morning my mum and her friend were yelling at me to get down stairs in a hurry

image

ahh

image

what are you doing?

bowlersandtophats:

grizzlyjesse:

Definitely what I want for Christmas

IRONMANU

TONY STARKU

d3uces:

naziclit:

imtooghettoforyou:

zerl:

d-issolve:

j-alouse:

fuq-stick:

deestarvivo:

hedonistica:

holy shit this is actually insane

Wow, give this a read
the actual fuck?

oh my fuck that is so insane

holy fuck my head hurts

omg i love this

WOW

oh wow

what. the. fuck.
omgGGG

d3uces:

naziclit:

imtooghettoforyou:

zerl:

d-issolve:

j-alouse:

fuq-stick:

deestarvivo:

hedonistica:

holy shit this is actually insane

Wow, give this a read

the actual fuck?

oh my fuck that is so insane

holy fuck my head hurts

omg i love this

WOW

oh wow

what. the. fuck.

omgGGG

highfunctioningdarklordofall:

oscarstardis:

callmekitto:

abortedslunk:

whatevertheheckles:

nepetaschoiceass:

whatevertheheckles:

butwewereokay:

bemusedlybespectacled:

imsoweirdimnotanitimanith:

mikulukashipblog:

ok lets see if that thing with glasses chicks suddenly becoming super weird feminine when they whip off their glasses works

woop

well that was anticlimatic wait

wait

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

What that is dumb and does not happen.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Look, check it out.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

See, not much diff-

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wait, what-

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

the fuck.

You guys are being dumbs

That does not happen in real life watch

See I told you

Wait a

who am i

you guys this is straight up bullshit

i’ll prove it to you all right now ok

you see, like i said, it’s total bull—

…oh what the hell…

the FUCK kind of GYPSY MAGIC SHIT is THIS?!?!?!?!?!

…….

hey boys~*~*~*~ wonk~*~*~*~*~

omg jeannine you win

Huh. You women and your woman problems.

Good thing I’m a dude and don’t have to worry about that kinda crapola

Wait wtf

You guys are amateurs

let me show you how this is done

ah shit I had them on the ”genderfuck” setting

well, that works too

okay you amateurs

 let me show you how it’s done

I’m now River Song

shhh spoilers

What the hell?

I wonder what happens when you put glasses on?

Ok, so far so good…

tubbsen:

I feel like doodling some Alpha kids! I wonder if there are any suggestions with them in my ask bo—

peachyteawithpineapples asked you:
How about some broxequius?




…………excellent

tubbsen:

How about some broxequius?

…………excellent

kirisame-drive:

bernkastel-kues:

aetropos:

yeahyeahno:

chicksdigthephoenix:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

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 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?

Rather unlikely!

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.

Therefore…

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!

You people are awesome and you’re making me want to get into Ace Attorney