whycantithinkofacoolname:

sillylaureate:

theknighttoyourtime:

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

image

image

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

image

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

image

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!

image

image

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

image

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?

image

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.

image

Thank you for your time.

image

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

image

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.

image

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.

image

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

image

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.

image

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

image

image

image

image

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.

image

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? 

image

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.

image

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?

image

image

Rather unlikely!

image

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

image

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

image

image

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

image

image

Hold on there, pups. You’re all going in completely different directions. Shih-na, if you will?

image

image

Lang Zi says: “The truth lies not at the exit, but rather, shines outside the maze itself.”

You need to see past the boundaries given to you in order to figure out the actual purpose and, as much as I’d hate to admit, both Mr. Prosecutor and the crow-girl have some pretty tame ground under their feet with those assumptions.

image

As said before, it’s logical to assume the photographer is merely depicting the method used in order to get the results shown in the second photo—and it can be just that.

But what if it’s something else entirely?

image

We’re all wolves who’ve been swindled by the coyote that has stolen our kill. How do we know if the photographer just isn’t using some clever ploy to get us all confused? He could have taken these pictures separately and simply put them together with getting us riled up in mind.

I think we all need to reconsider our options, here.

Casually brings it back.

amazing use of gifs, ladies and gentleman

Teen!Lock
  • John: You fancy Molly.
  • Sherlock: Wha- No, why would you say that, who said that, did Molly say that?
  • Sherlock: *sighs*
  • Sherlock: How did you know?
  • John: I could tell from the way you look at her.
  • Sherlock: *stressed* Do you think Molly knows?
  • John: No.
  • John: But she does fancy you.
  • Sherlock: No, what, how do you know, did Molly say anything?
  • John: She blushes every time you look at her.
  • John: Plus I heard her saying something to Mary-
  • Sherlock: What did she say?
  • John: Something about-
  • Sherlock: John, it's very important you give me exactly what she said.
  • Sherlock: Word for word.
  • John: *sighs*

tomhazeldine:

I’ve realised now that the reality of children is you have to be in the right place with the right person.

thinksquad:

DNA evidence has uncovered the identity of Jack The Ripper, and it’s none of the romantic suspects – such as the Queen’s surgeon Sir William Gull, or artist Walter Sickert.

The most infamous serial killer in history has been identified as a relatively underwhelming Polish madman called Aaron Kosminski, who was committed to a mental asylum at the height of the Ripper hysteria.

Kosminski was actually a suspect at the time of the murders, even named by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson in notes the policemen made, but as the myth and legend of the murders grew over more than 125 years, so too did the list of more fanciful suspects.

The breakthrough came when a scientist, using cutting-edge technology, matched DNA evidence on a shawl found at one of the crime scenes with descendants of Kosminski.

Dr Jari Louhelainen, a Finnish expert in historic DNA, was brought in to study a shawl found with Catherine Eddowes, the second-last ‘confirmed’ victim of the Ripper, whose body was discovered in Mitre Square on September 30.

Aaron Kosminski was born in the Polish town of Kłodawa, then part of the Russian Empire, in 1865. He emigrated to England with his family in 1881, moving to Whitechapel.

He set himself up as a hairdresser but it is clear that he was suffering psychological problems, with latter-day case notes saying he had been ill from 1885.

The murders attributed to Jack The Ripper began in 1888. Anywhere between five and 11 murders of women in and around the Whitechapel area have been linked to the Ripper.

The five relatively undisputed murders – of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly – happened between August 31 and November 9 1888. The 126th anniversary of Chapman’s murder is on Monday (September 8).

The police file on the murders also point to the mutilation deaths of Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie, the ‘Pinchin Street torso’ and Frances Coles – Coles being the last to die in February 1891.

In February 1891, Kosminski was forcibly put in Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, and he remained in asylums until his death in 1919, aged 53.

While it can be argued that it is hardly conclusive evidence that Kosminski was the Ripper (the DNA of a Whitechapel resident on the belongings of a known Whitechapel prostitute merely proves Kosminski met Eddowes at some point), it does put Kosminski closer to a Ripper victim than any other suspect in the century-old case.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/07/identity-of-jack-the-ripper-finally-revealed-using-cutting-edge-technology-of-course-4859504/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jack-ripper-finally-been-revealed-4178080

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-07/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-finally-been-revealed/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html

wittacism:

It’s essay writing season for tons of students!

After being a college writing tutor for over a year, I thought I would share my advice with all you awesome people on tumblr. This is how I write essays, but if you’ve got more tips, feel free to add them below. 

Happy writing. You can do it!

burdenedwithgloriousassbutt:

assbutt-from-gallifrey:

That one time doctor who got the filming SO DAMN RIGHT

This is one of the best episodes of television ever written. I’ve had so many people agree with me that it doesn’t matter if you think Doctor Who is complete shit - everyone needs to watch this episode. It speaks volumes about what it really means to live with actual depression and anxiety and the incredible weight that is to bear and the love we need to have for each other and the importance of every single moment. Every child needs to watch this episode. It is so important.