AMMC

This blog will feature whatever I'm currently interested in at the moment. There will be no main theme to it what-so-ever really, as I can be pretty flighty about current interests. Good thing I'll never be tumblr famous... or famous for that matter XD
~ Wednesday, January 9 ~
Permalink
4gifs:


Bear go home you are drunk

4gifs:

Bear go home you are drunk

(Source: ForGIFs.com)

Tags: Random
31,984 notes
reblogged via fonbella
Permalink
fonbella:

dreamsaredangerousthings:

leandralocke:

mentailments:

vodkacupcakes:

the fuck

Each ball weighs differently, causing each one to bounce to a specific height, and when precisely placed in the dust pans and thrown down… 2013

fonbella:

dreamsaredangerousthings:

leandralocke:

mentailments:

vodkacupcakes:

the fuck

Each ball weighs differently, causing each one to bounce to a specific height, and when precisely placed in the dust pans and thrown down… 2013

image

image

image

(Source: cineraria)

Tags: Random MAGIC
1,423,206 notes
reblogged via fonbella
~ Saturday, October 27 ~
Permalink

spookycherrypie:

sometimes im really excited about things and i want to tell everyone but then i remember nobody cares and i just sit there like

to tell or not to tell

(Source: riveille)

Tags: random
298,374 notes
reblogged via fonbella
~ Wednesday, August 22 ~
Permalink Tags: Sea Otter skdjfa;k ADORABLE random
440,468 notes
reblogged via tellitbyheart
~ Thursday, August 9 ~
Permalink
racethewind10:

hugger-of-trees:

tinuelena:

ataleoftwocrowleys:

rsharky:

kaydeeblog:




OH, SHIT. I’ve only seen this in video games.

W H A T

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE

The longer I watch, the more awesome it becomes

Badass

How do you even do that without accidentally breaking someone’s neck?

So everyone calling bullshit on Black Widow? OBSERVE THIS. It IS possible IRL.

Wow. Simply wow. I didn’t actually know it was possible.

YES! I needed this on my dash again. 

racethewind10:

hugger-of-trees:

tinuelena:

ataleoftwocrowleys:

rsharky:

kaydeeblog:


OH, SHIT. I’ve only seen this in video games.

W H A T

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE

The longer I watch, the more awesome it becomes

Badass

How do you even do that without accidentally breaking someone’s neck?

So everyone calling bullshit on Black Widow? OBSERVE THIS. It IS possible IRL.

Wow. Simply wow. I didn’t actually know it was possible.

YES! I needed this on my dash again. 

(Source: zkarl)

Tags: Random Holy crap that's awesome
726,759 notes
reblogged via miggylol
~ Friday, June 22 ~
Permalink
Tags: Pisces Pride! Random
2,070 notes
reblogged via zodiaccity
~ Sunday, June 10 ~
Permalink
imawhat:

macchabee:

I think you mean “words I’m going to use all the time”

WTF is going on at the Easter Island?

imawhat:

macchabee:

I think you mean “words I’m going to use all the time”

WTF is going on at the Easter Island?

Tags: Random XD I need to put these in legit sentences at one point
90,607 notes
reblogged via miggylol
~ Wednesday, December 7 ~
Permalink

Guys, I was playing the Sims 3 today, as you do, doing a Kinn playthrough. And while I already know that Finn and Kurt get on epically and will at least be close friends or hook up with or without me but I wasn’t expecting to see what would happen to the other four gleeks I made: Puck, Mercedes, Quinn and Rachel. I kicked them out early on, even though they were all friends, so I could focus on the two boys.

Then Finn bumps into Puck, and he’s dating Mercedes when I was going to put him with Quinn. So I check to see if Quinn with anyone.

SHE’S DATING RACHEL!

THE SIMS 3 NOT ONLY SHIPS KINN, BUT IT SHIPS FABERRY.

…I should make other glee members and see who they hook up with >:3

Tags: Sims 3 Kurt Hummel Finn Hudson Kinn Noah Puckerman Mercedes Jones Puckcedes Quinn Fabray Rachel Berry Faberry SERIOUSLY I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP This has been a post. Random
14 notes
~ Tuesday, November 29 ~
Permalink

Random

I am far too happy about the fact that Monteith is a Scottish name >:D Somehow my adoration for Cory had grown… which I didn’t really think was possible XS

Tags: Cory Monteith Random Proud Scotswoman ... With a bizarre accent from nowhere XP
1 note
Permalink

sen1227:

shillo:

starexorcist:

russian-tupperware:

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!

Hold it right there everyone.

There is..

A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.

uhm

guys the reason the photographer had to use M&M’s in one image and gumballs in the other is….

because I ate the gumballs from the ‘original’ image.

sorry

(HOLY FUCK THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING I HAVE EVER BEEN A PART OF)

I DIED.

なんで途中から逆転裁判が始まってるのwww

Tags: Phoenix Wright I need this on my blog RIGHT NOW lol random non-glee XP This is so good I just had to have it!
325,269 notes
reblogged via duetography