Funny, Strange, Random Pics

[CabbitCabbit]

Originally Posted by GaliemVaelant

Yeah
Had the buddy's blessing and all.
...and some plastic wrap

The important thing to remember would have been to wrap it around your dick and not her face.

[GaliemVaelant]

Originally Posted by CabbitCabbit

The important thing to remember would have been to wrap it around your dick and not her face.

So much for oral...

I better get some sleep lol

[Quineloe]

wtf

[Occido]

The red splurt you see there.... that's his balls.

[Quineloe]

d

[Salshun]

Originally Posted by Quineloe

d

Ahh Courtney Love. Our generations Yoko Ono.

[TheOkapi]

[CabbitCabbit]

Originally Posted by Salshun

Ahh Courtney Love. Our generations Yoko Ono.

Except Yoko Ono was actually kind of sweet (if she wasnt singing)

[nature]

Originally Posted by CabbitCabbit

Except Yoko Ono was actually kind of sweet (if she wasnt singing)

and John didn't meet her when she was stripping at No. 5 Orange.

[Horse]

Originally Posted by azum

Scroll so that you can only see her head. Now watch carefully. She will switch directions, even without looking at the whole -illusion-. Perhaps the illusion works with the head, as well as the heel. It is hard to tell really... but I'm not putting my confidence in it.

Right Brain v Left Brain | Herald Sun
This came up in a design theory class I help teach.

The top of the body and the legs are not spinning together. There are minor cues you can look at to establish which way it is spinning, but all that does is give us an insight as to if you're left or right brained.


Here is the spoiler after analysis:

The shadow = counterclockwise. You cannot refute the shadow. Logicians will use the shadow as the only bit of data needed to "know" the direction of the spinning. Problem is, the shadow is IMPOSSIBLE. Look at it closely. Explain how you can rotate on one leg while rotating the foot of the other pointed out in front of you, yet the pointed one's shadow never is "in front" or "behind" the center.

The crotchal region = counterclockwise. Frame 13 has a small cue (the white line) that can only be perceived as the center leg being in front at that point.


If you look from that white line in frame 13 down, without the shadow:
the pointed leg is actually moving in a semicircle from the left to the right and then back to the left, behind the woman. between 32 and 33 there's a huge jump. This jump is meant to jar you into "reprocessing" the image, it gives it that forced lack of continuity so that you reassess things (and rely on gestalt more). The cue here is that in certain frames you see the big toe. This orients the pointed leg... the jump between 32 and 33 happens when the leg would be in the facing-towards, left side position, instead it seems to hop to facing away, right side.

the centered leg appears clockwise in the same movement, but opposed to the pointed leg (its turning one way while the other is turning a different way).

Notice I say pointed and centered - if you pay attention to the top at all it should be impossible to decide which is her left and right leg...


the white line up is moving in a semicircle facing the viewer, from the right to the left.

The face semicircle and the legs semicircle are always pointed away from each other. That leaves the "logicians" to point out that the shadow and white line means she "must" be turning counterclockwise where the creatives see the possibility of it being the other direction strongly, as the shadow and white line are conflicting with the fact that her legs would be put on her torso backwards.

So, yeah, the answer is she isn't spinning in any direction. Believing any of the cues exemplifies your tendencies.

What "brained" is a person who analyzes all of the possibilities and separate components and can see both sides equally? Schizo? Because this proves that being brain "weighted" is foolish at best.

See attachments for frame 13 which is impossible to refute, as well as the top view orientation shifting of legs to upper torso. Frame 13 is more than a hinge, it is that minor cue letting us know the center leg must be in the front.

Here are a few more (famous) illusions

Ames
Ames Window
Chaplin

The issue is there's no rendering, on the Ames trapezoid or the spinning woman. If you had a true lightsource where you'd see gradation, as well as depth of field, the illusion would be revealed. This is why the video of the ames trapezoid is easier to see the shape of the object rotating, due to the shadows where the applet one is impossible (and the swaying back and forth is dominant in the woman.)

That's where those little cues give you the "logic" needed to decide which way it must be spinning. ffffraaaammmeeee 13

ps > chaplin mask = fucking creepy

[Antoine]

Say what you will about logical analysis, but I (and many others) still see it spinning clockwise (along with the shadow)

[Arbitrary]

When I watch MST3K I always feel Crow is facing away from the screen instead of towards it.

[Naerik]

Originally Posted by Horse

Right Brain v Left Brain | Herald Sun
This came up in a design theory class I help teach.

The top of the body and the legs are not spinning together. There are minor cues you can look at to establish which way it is spinning, but all that does is give us an insight as to if you're left or right brained.


Here is the spoiler after analysis:

The shadow = counterclockwise. You cannot refute the shadow. Logicians will use the shadow as the only bit of data needed to "know" the direction of the spinning. Problem is, the shadow is IMPOSSIBLE. Look at it closely. Explain how you can rotate on one leg while rotating the foot of the other pointed out in front of you, yet the pointed one's shadow never is "in front" or "behind" the center.

The crotchal region = counterclockwise. Frame 13 has a small cue (the white line) that can only be perceived as the center leg being in front at that point.


If you look from that white line in frame 13 down, without the shadow:
the pointed leg is actually moving in a semicircle from the left to the right and then back to the left, behind the woman. between 32 and 33 there's a huge jump. This jump is meant to jar you into "reprocessing" the image, it gives it that forced lack of continuity so that you reassess things (and rely on gestalt more). The cue here is that in certain frames you see the big toe. This orients the pointed leg... the jump between 32 and 33 happens when the leg would be in the facing-towards, left side position, instead it seems to hop to facing away, right side.

the centered leg appears clockwise in the same movement, but opposed to the pointed leg (its turning one way while the other is turning a different way).

Notice I say pointed and centered - if you pay attention to the top at all it should be impossible to decide which is her left and right leg...


the white line up is moving in a semicircle facing the viewer, from the right to the left.

The face semicircle and the legs semicircle are always pointed away from each other. That leaves the "logicians" to point out that the shadow and white line means she "must" be turning counterclockwise where the creatives see the possibility of it being the other direction strongly, as the shadow and white line are conflicting with the fact that her legs would be put on her torso backwards.

So, yeah, the answer is she isn't spinning in any direction. Believing any of the cues exemplifies your tendencies.

What "brained" is a person who analyzes all of the possibilities and separate components and can see both sides equally? Schizo? Because this proves that being brain "weighted" is foolish at best.

See attachments for frame 13 which is impossible to refute, as well as the top view orientation shifting of legs to upper torso. Frame 13 is more than a hinge, it is that minor cue letting us know the center leg must be in the front.

Here are a few more (famous) illusions

Ames
Ames Window
Chaplin

The issue is there's no rendering, on the Ames trapezoid or the spinning woman. If you had a true lightsource where you'd see gradation, as well as depth of field, the illusion would be revealed. This is why the video of the ames trapezoid is easier to see the shape of the object rotating, due to the shadows where the applet one is impossible (and the swaying back and forth is dominant in the woman.)

That's where those little cues give you the "logic" needed to decide which way it must be spinning. ffffraaaammmeeee 13

ps > chaplin mask = fucking creepy

wat

[Horse]

Originally Posted by Antoine

Say what you will about logical analysis, but I (and many others) still see it spinning clockwise (along with the shadow)

Hi, the shadow is impossible, even if it were possible to physically make that shadow, it doesn't match the body.

Go ahead and spin clockwise or counter clockwise while making that shadow. Doesn't require logic. Shouldn't the forward foot encircle the middle foot when making a shadow. Why yes, it should.


There is no pure spinning to see. If you dissect the illusion you'll see that the figure isn't spinning at all, it just depends on what you look at and what cues your brain says "ok since THIS IS TRUE then it must be spinning LIKE SO."

So unless you can spin one leg around 360 degrees at the hip, I'm gonna have to disagree.


I mean, just look only at the shadow. If you think that it represents legs spinning clockwise that'd be some fucked up rick james linguini legs. Counterclockwise is the way the rotation occurs (the pointed leg is only visible from right to left) but that's at least possible - while it doesn't actually match someone holding their leg pointed forward.

[Kevincheese]

Originally Posted by Antoine

Say what you will about logical analysis, but I (and many others) still see it spinning clockwise (along with the shadow)

I can't control which way I can see it, but I can see it both ways at different times. I can "voluntarily" (using that word loosely because it isn't totally controllable, but by shifting my focus a bit, or looking away and coming back) change the direction that I do see it moving in.


That window didn't get to me so bad, at least til I saw the real model... but goddamn that face is creepy.