Powered by KikBooks Widget

By on July 10, 2010, with 161 Comments

Now that we’re posting all sorts of real life optical illusions, specially those involving chicks beautiful women, let me show you one of the newest ones floating ’round the net. Can you see what is happening in the photo below? I can assure you there has been no digital manipulation involved. It shouldn’t take you more than a second or two to see what is actually happening. Still, I think it makes one hell of an artistic shot. Agree? Yes or No? Btw, I’ve grouped some gymnastics illusions into one separate group, so be sure to check the #gymnast tag if you’re interested…

Gymnasts Optical Illusion

Comments

161 Responses
  1. colin says:

    she is laying on her back with her legs against the wall, nice

  2. Jacob says:

    got it! the guy is sitting down and its a downward angle shot!

  3. Jonathan says:

    She is just laying on the floor with her legs against the wall.

  4. Digit says:

    Great shot, athlete sitting on the mat and the gymnast is on her back with her feet against the wall. Photographer is in the rafters :-)

  5. she’s obviously lying on her back and her legs are up against a wall.
    p s. :) first????

  6. movocelot says:

    Please realize that you have female fans.
    Categorizing this an illusion as “involving chicks” is insulting to women and serves only to incite stupid, lascivious male responses.

  7. Andrew says:

    howd they get a camera up the wall? or is it a partition before seats or summet lol
    nice illusion though

  8. illusionist says:

    girls are not “chicks.” i find that pretty degrading.

    but nice illusion…

  9. Hering says:

    I don’t see anything special…

  10. Valerie says:

    mmmm… not sure about this one. I prefer the other gymnast illusions better.

  11. its too noticeable cause of the line near gymnove

  12. David Bethke says:

    The girl at the bottom of the picture is lying on her back with her feet and legs against the wall.

  13. cgimusic says:

    How did they take that shot? Wall mount the camera and use a remote trigger?

  14. Jack says:

    The girl sat down at the bottom of the picture is actually lying down with her back to the blue floor. Her legs are placed on the wall with the camera man taking the picture from the stop looking down.

  15. Greg says:

    It took me a while… but I finally realized the girl in pink is stretching against the wall.

  16. Davor says:

    yesah figured right away, but it made you think for a sec.

  17. Rity says:

    Wow! That’s a really neat picture! Thanks for sharing it!! Very artistic, indeed!

  18. anonymous says:

    i saw through the illusion right away… It was too simple

  19. Care Bear says:

    Good thing I’m not into gymnastics.

  20. Hayden says:

    Took me a few seconds to figure out, the girl in pink is lying on the floor with her feet up against the wall. Cool picture.

  21. Biggest problem for me: Somehow it seems the upper athlet is only computer generated..isn’t his/her body a bit to angular for a real one?
    Anyway: Still awesome =D

  22. Emily Eby says:

    very cool. it took me a second to realize that the girl on the bottom is sitting with her back on the ground and her feet up on the wall. very clever and a great shot. good illusion.

  23. Brian Peralta says:

    First wooh

  24. ninga says:

    how can u say boring in a nice way?

    or how about simply:

    BORING!

    GIVE ME A B! GIVE A AN O! GIVE ME A R! etc.

  25. Princess says:

    Girls are not chicks. We are women, ladies or girls. It is sexist and degrading to call us that and my good opinion (as well as several other female friends of mine) has been tarnished by that negative term. Please change it. Good illusion though.

  26. Rhelyc says:

    Cool…she’s on her back on the floor…the floor is painted to look like the sky…very cool!

  27. Brad says:

    At first, for a few seconds, i didn’t even see what was wrong i was too busy thinking how UNLIKE water the blue looked like (as if the illusion was that it was water) but then i realised that that wasn’t it…
    But anyway, then when i saw it:- lol i was looking tooo deeply into it looking for a more complicated illusion solution, but then i got it after about 15 seconds :)

    Very nice i like it! :)

  28. qwertyuiop says:

    she isnt sitting down
    shes lying on the floor with her legs on the wall

  29. Rhiannon says:

    I saw it the first moment.

  30. jazz says:

    her back is on the floor her legs on wall

  31. Get a life girls, chicks are cute and cuddly…honey, you can call me a chick anytime! And I love the illusion! I thought the girl was sitting on the floor with a tarp draped behind her and the guy was a projection on the wall….guess I totally missed that one. Keep up the great work!

  32. Yes, great artistic shot. Took me a couple of minutes to see it. A very good optical illusion! Keep the good stuff coming!

  33. Zaphod says:

    I think I first saw this very picture in the olympic games of 2008, but I’m not sure.

  34. nadia says:

    SMPLE ONE THETHE CAMERA ANGLE IS TAKEN FROM ABOVE THE GYMNAST THAT IS LYING ON THE BLUE MAT HER LEGS ARE SIMLY LEANINGAGAIN THE GREY WALL WHILE SHE IS LYING ON THE BLUE MAT THE CAMERA SHOT IS TAKEN ABOVE THE PINK GYMNIST AND THE OTHER GYMIST IS SITTING DOWN THE CAMERA SHOT IS TAKEN ABOVE EASY ONE NOT PHOTOSHOPPED LIKE THE GYNIST IN PINK IS NJUST LYING DOWN AND HER LEGS ARE PROPPED AGAINST THE GREY WALL FOR SUPPORT THE CAMERA IS TAKEN ABOVE HER ITS JUST ALL ABOUT ANGLES AND NO PHOTOSHOPPED NICE ONE EASSY ONE TO DETECT IF OYU AHVE KEEN EYES LIKE ME NADIA HAVE A NICE SUMMER MR. V.

  35. dana thompson says:

    The use of the word “chicks” to describe women bothered me too. At first I thought the word was a hint some how connected to the illusion. I don’t usually notice things like this…or care! This one struck me odd, maybe because the use of the word “chicks” seemed so out of character for the site.

  36. Rebecca says:

    illusions with chicks?? you ARE aware that females see this too….right? I think that the word “chicks”, referring to a female, should not be used. please change this. it sort of annoys me.

  37. It took me a while to spot all the chicks in the picture. Apparently they jump out when you least expect it and suddenly Vurdlak is the character with his back against the wall…

  38. Dan says:

    She’s sitting on the ground, and the wall is painted to look like a top-down shot. Look at the texture of the blue mat and the bottom edge, it shows the imperfections in the concrete. Plus, she isn’t making any imprint in the mat. The illusion is the wall, not the gymnast.

  39. Riccardo says:

    seriously?? women saying that “chicks” is a degrading term against women?? you realize that its the 21st century and women are often being called “bitches”, “hoes” and other way degrading names and you’re saying that “chicks” is degrading? Get a damn life!

  40. Latisha says:

    wow, this is the best

    I didnt get it at all until I read solution :DDD

  41. Amir says:

    Inf act its a nice but very easy illusion,
    girl is in fact stretching legs to wards the roof.

  42. Brian Peralta says:

    Riccardo is damn right you CHICKS need to get a life

  43. duncan says:

    I’ve read a lot of complaining about the term “chick” but nobody has bothered to explain why this might be offensive to this website’s creator and owner; to whom English is a second language.

    Perhaps some of you that find offence could take the time to explain why you personally find offence at the term?

    Allow me to explain it as I see it; women in the west have had to fight to gain their freedom to; vote, to work in traditionally male jobs and to make equal pay for equal work. While not offensive in and of themselves, words like Chick, Fox, doll and others have served as an obvious example of inequality in our society.

    For example, no man would ever call another male co-worker by a nickname. Instead it is considered professional to use his proper name. That women where not afforded this same common courtesy is seen as condescending and patronizing because it verbally reduces women to the level of animal or even worse, an object of desire – not even human nor worthy of a proper name and nothing more.

    Think of it this way; putting a label like this on a person, attempts to put limits who they are. In the west, that’s a big no no.

    I recommend you only use these terms of endearment in the company of close friends who know and understand your intentions and do not find them offensive.

  44. Stephen says:

    I am of the opinion.

    Your WEBSITE your WORDS. If some readers don’t like your posts then that should go somewhere else.

    Don’t waste your time trying to please everyone, it is a impossible and pointless task!

  45. mallu says:

    A superb piece of photography

  46. ishan says:

    well thats not so exciting…but a simple thing to watch…

  47. drea says:

    you can totally tell that the one in the pink just has her legs straight up the wall.., but that’s still a pretty good idea. :) (it tricked me for a split second)

  48. amr says:

    i agree with u guys i will never call girls ‘chicks’ anymore
    I ‘ll call them “BITCHES” instead
    hehe

  49. dana thompson says:

    RIGHT-ON DUNCAN! That was a perfect definition about the use of the word “chicks” to American women. Now I understand why it was used since, in this case, English is the 2nd language. I wish I was so gifted as to have a second language. Thanks

  50. Kevin says:

    Hint: The girl isn’t really sitting.

    • Hi says:

      which one? I think that the girl in pink is leaning on the floor and putting her feet on the wall, while the other girl is just sitting normally on a platform

    • Sylvester popis says:

      umm look at floor where the lights are its easy. the girl in pink just has her feet up. plus CUTE girls ^_^

    • swan says:

      the painting is not perfect the far right of the sceen is the attention point….the thing the girl with the ice pack is sitting on is imperfect in shape the near the metal chain on the right is the platform/foam is elongated past where it should be.. the artist is amasing but not perfect

    • uefbaudf says:

      no shit

    • kellie says:

      I think that the girl is in a position where her legs are up on the wall, and her body laying on the floor. And the comera guy took the shot above the girl on the gray wall to make it look like she was sitting and the blue floored area was the ceiling

  51. PartyProbe says:

    Wait…people think this is an optical illusion? Jesus Christ on a cracker.

  52. Stanley says:

    wow this is so obvious, wheres the illusion? It’s a view from the top, the woman in pink is just leaning her legs against a wall. Who would fall for this?

    • Idiots says:

      She isn’t sitting with her legs up on the wall, thats the optical allusion, she is sitting against a giant painting.

    • stupid says:

      lol! your the idiot! she isnt sitting on a giant painting. she is laying on the floor with her legs up on the wall. geez if you even had an ounce of intelligence in you, you would have noticed that

    • Harold says:

      Hey, just because someone doesn’t see it right away doesn’t mean anyone’s an idiot. I was wondering if it was a painting too at first, but I just couldn’t buy into that because of the fact that the metal looked too 3D to actually be a painting. There’s a difference, and in that picture the metal, in comparison to the woman, does not look 2D, it looks 3D, in which case, unless it’s photo shoped.

      I honestly could not figure out what I was looking at until I read what Kevin said, that she wasn’t sitting. Then it dawned on me that it was a shot from above, and then seeing how the girl’s back and head were so aligned and flat against the floor and that I could tell that he thing above her was 3D, it made perfect sense that it was a shot from above. No one, not even the most balanced has such a straight solid alignment when setting back against a wall. However, when laying back against the wall, gravity makes it the back more aligned.

  53. BOBO says:

    She’s stretching, lying on her back with legs up parallel to the wall. The girl on the mat is just sitting normally.

  54. Mandy says:

    I don’t see what’s offensive about the word “chick” to describe a female is either. I AM a female and I find nothing insulting about it. It’s just a modern slang term for “girl”. I would say the equivalent in male is “dude”. I think people have too much time to sit and nitpick about things that really don’t matter. :-P

    As far as the illusion. It may be easy to figure out, but it is still a pretty cool picture!

    • Dolphin says:

      I don’t really care about his use of it too much,except I wonder who in the world invented the slang,”Chick.”I like the illusion though.

    • alexvv says:

      well, not only is calling a girl chick “slang” but its shortened from spanish. Chica and chico means boy, and girl.

    • Harold says:

      I bet whoever it was that invented the word “chick,” was a farmer brought up raising chickens. It was probably a term that caught on rapidly in the farming community because chicks are cute little baby birds and anyone can see how a farming community might relate their kids developing a puppy-love for some classmate or neighbor to cute little baby chicken running around.

      Anyhow it probably caught on in the south first in a large farming area.

      I don’t know, but it’s as good a guess as any.

    • Harold says:

      Actually what Alexvv is suggesting makes the most sense out of all of these responses. I mean it’s infinitely more likely that such a recent term developed from a term used by another language, especially since it became so wide-spread in this nation that gets most of it’s newer common terms from other languages.

  55. Valerie Pallaoro says:

    I fell for it. Because I saw the pink gymnast first I though she was sitting against a very large advertising photo on a wall. Was impressed when scrolled down and set straight.

  56. JDedmon says:

    This isn’t an optical illusion, this is use of perspective in photography. Good try, but way to fail

  57. me says:

    she is on the wall.

  58. matias says:

    omg!! the guy who sits on the mat is from Chile.. nice

  59. Jesse says:

    That took me like 3 secs to figure out lol

  60. jhgkjhg says:

    Worst illusion ever.

  61. Dr. Otto B. Vious says:

    I think the chick is sitting on the wall by the use of massive amounts of super glue. You can clearly see that the red device is chained to the wall and holding the green, the shoe is stapled to the wall, and the chick in pink dress is clearly holding her breath, maybe because she recently passed wind, indicated by her blushing and her gaze. I think this was a studio photo created for an Ad-campaign for Gymnova.

    This is the obvious explaination using Occhams Eraser.

    “Chick” is the short form of “chickhead”, the female equivalent of dickhead which obviously would not apply to a person of the fairer gender. The use of the word Chicks is only an annoyance for females with a lower than average degree of attractiveness and self esteem. I, myself – whenever addressed “Dickhead” – typically interpret it as a sign of lacking verbal eloquence on part of the addressor, and take no notice of it.

    God bless the chicks.

    Dr. Vious

    • Emily Meyer says:

      PLEASE tell me you’re kidding?

    • Frank Black says:

      He’s not kidding, he’s just plain tupid.

      As far as chicks, the originak origin was in the early fifties during the age of rock and roll when guy’s would just hang out wherever a lot of ladies would pass by. It took on new life in the sixties when the Brits started using the term chickies to refer to young, cute females. It resurged in America with the Austin Powers movies, even more than when the British Pop musicians began touring here.
      Take it from me, that term will never die now.
      I’ve been around for all of it, and am fascinated by the different terms people use to refer to the opposite sex. I even accidentally tossed a Brit down 3 flights of stairs because of the offensive term he used while talking about the lady I was dancing with.

    • Harold says:

      Hmm, who knows who’s actually right. Did it come about as a lame come-back at girls that would call a man a derogatory term or did it come about due to the adorability and overall cuteness of baby chickens that was later translated by the English to be a slang term for the young cute adolescent/adult girls, or are both ideas completely wrong.

      Who will ever know? Maybe a PH D in modern language might. As for the rest of us, it like the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop, it will always be a mystery.

  62. dennis says:

    i think its a picture above were she is sitting

  63. john says:

    Easy it’s a wall mounted camera and the women is on her back with his legs up on the wall

  64. Abdullah Alam says:

    She is not a she!!!!!! Guys! thats the illusion

  65. Jaelynn says:

    its not reallicarly

  66. Pupugnao says:

    nice illusion! :)

  67. Dark-N-Lovely says:

    I think the girl is leaning (her back) against the painting on the wall

  68. Farah Naz says:

    Wow its so beautiful and amazing.

  69. steven says:

    just a guy sittin and a girl laing on her back w/ feet on wall camera pic taken from the wall :P

  70. Krystina says:

    this one really isnt tht hard figure out…ones sitting on the mat, and the other one is laying on the floor wth her legs on the wall

  71. RJ says:

    It’s a pretty cool picture. I love the people who act like they took one look at it and got it instantly. The picture is taken in such a way that it manipulates your way of thinking (if only for a few seconds)because 99.9% of our lives, we are accustomed to seeing things from a straight on viewpoint. Instead of looking directly down on something. If you must try and impress us by saying that “this picture is stupid. I took one look and got it immediately” You are 2 things. A liar, and an idiot.

  72. Piano says:

    That really is’nt much of an optical illusion. THe ugly pink one is back to floor and legs to wall. And the red on eis sitting normally.

  73. THe Other One says:

    There is a camera hanging above the wall. The girl in the pink is sitting with her legs against the wall so her shoulders and stomach look pressed down. The other girl is just sitting there.

  74. Anonymous says:

    It’s really obvious that the girl in the pink just has her legs against the wall, and the picture is taken from above…
    Anyone who can’t realize that from first sight is an idiot.

  75. georgert says:

    My brain refuses to understand why you use Alicia Sacramone’s picture to draw interweb users to this slightly lame picture.

  76. JANNA-Cuz I'm not SCARED1 says:

    OK! Now, shut up! There is a chick, legs in air, against a wall, chains are cuz the equipment used needs to be secured to the floor, or effin wall, however you wanna look at the pic, but, all you dumb *ucks, CHICK will NEVER offend me, a CHICK in the U.S. of A. is defined as a “newly hatched fowl”, AKA, female, go ahead, try it…A female is refered to as a “chick”, just like “blokes” n “friends” have their “slang”. The effen pic was taken above the CHICK in the pink, looking down at the callouses of her feet. The other CHICK is sitting there with an ice pack on her ankle…..stop with this one, youre ALL DUMBARSES…….

    • fisheads says:

      Okay janna-cause I’m not scared, you shut up u are just a huge hater of the ate of optical illusions. So just stop, I like to figure out illusions. And I resemble that remark about the chick thing.

    • Oh, help, society is nuts says:

      Fisheads. I agree with Janna. She makes perfect sense to me.

  77. Eldubb says:

    It’s simple. Act as if you have a camera and your standing on a platform looking down at the girls. The girl in the red is actually sitting normally, the girl in blue is laying with her back against the floor and her legs on the wall. The photographer is actually overhead! Duhhhhhh!

  78. Blake Long says:

    That is clearly a picture on a wall. The lighting is totally different.

  79. katie says:

    i study photography and i can tell you that the girl in the pink is sitting on the floor against a reflective tarp with a picture of a chilean girl from an aerial view. it isn’t that hard to figure out, considering the lighting contrasts, the girl in pink is clearly more realistic looking that the other, and i know from experience that gymnasts have muscle. there is no possible way that the chilean girl is a gymnast, she is all skin and bones! a little twig!

  80. Haley says:

    Looking at this, I actually believe she is sitting on the ground and it is a painting or a picture behind her. At first, I thought that it was obvious, her legs are up the wall. But then, I took a closer look. Study the background, you can tell it is a picture! It looks natural at first, but if you really study it, you can tell. That, I believe, is the illusion. You can’t tell if it is real or fake. The girl in the pink is obviously real. But the rest is fake. Also, it is really easy to look like your laying on the ground with your legs up, you tilt your head to the side and take a breath and bring up your shoulders and it gives the illusion you’re legs are up.

  81. Ninjaborg says:

    Okay. Wow! SO much passion generated over two such trivial topics. The photo is so obviously what some of you have hit on: The girl in pink is lying on her back, on the floor, with her legs above her, against the actual wall. The other girl, the equipment, mat, etc, are on the actual floor. I don’t care if you’re a life-long photographer, or if this is the first photo you happened across, the day you got internet access installed in your cave. Never mind the thousands of similar images, all over the W.eird W.ild W.eb, just think back (Those of you that are old enough. And for those of you that aren’t, it’s called Google, kids) to the original Batman & Robin T.V. Live Action series, Starring Adam west, and Burt Ward. Remember one of their “cutting-edge” special effects, where Batman, and his sidekick would walk/climb up the side of a building, using a batarang as a grappling hook, and a long length of bat-rope? Every time they did this gag, they’d invariably pass a window, where the tenant would pop his head out and make a comment. It was cool, when you were twelve, and that really WAS cutting edge SFX, but go look at it now, and it’s so obvious that the brick “wall” they were climbing up, was a brick floor, and that the guy who stuck his head out the window to ask the dynamic duo if they could tell the idiot in 3C to stop playing his cello at 3:AM, was actually climbing a ladder, and popping up through a window built into the stage floor( that’s why they did that did that particular bit so much. They already had this weird set built, so they made sure to get some mileage out of it). Looking back, you’d notice how the heroes capes would “hang” towards the building wall, instead of “down” behind them, and various little things like that. Now, back in the day, it fooled the fans, who’d never seen it done before, and it was really neato! But now, it wouldn’t fool you for a second. They simply took a picture from a perspective you weren’t expecting and didn’t bother to clue you as to HOW to view it. Your brain did what it always does, and tried to make sense of the illogical, and confusingly contradictory input you were feeding it. And the first thing it tries to do, is to decide which way is up. Once it assigned a set of spacial compass points to the picture, it then tried to figure out how the rest of the picture made sense. Failing that, it might start the process from the beginning and try things a different way to get a better fit. Wash, rinse, repeat. In the end, you either figure it out, or throw your hands up in the air, and cry “Man was not meant to have this knowledge! It is a thing of evil, and we must kill it with fire”! Okay. Maybe not. Either way, is it an illusion? Absolutely not. An illusion is when you think you see a thing, that you actually don’t, because it isn’t there, or things are not as they. This picture is an example of an artistic technique called Altered Perspective. Everything in it actually IS there, but you have it given to you in such a way that you’re forced to do a little more math than you’re used to, to make any kind of sense out of it. Oh yeah! I almost forgot. “Chicks”? It did start out right around the rock and roll era, and it was started by the Brits, and very shortly after, the English as well. They had been referring to adult women as “Birds” for around twenty years prior, because they were the “egg layers” they tended the nest, reared and fed the young taught ‘em to fly, and then, put them out of the nest. That’s why women were referred to as birds. But, what left the nest? “Chicks”, of course. A chick was a girl who, while still being young, was now old enough to “leave the nest” (move out of the house), which meant she was old enough to do that, which meant she was 18, and, as the vernacular of the day went, of breeding age. This started another expression, “chicken-hawk” Which was a guy who had a particular preference for girls as young as they could legally be obtained. Unfortunately, they were generally men old enough to, at best, be the chicks father. Present-day, “chicken-hawk” has come to mean something completely different, and is primarily used by homosexuals, more often than not in conjunction with “chicken-head”. Anyway, that’s all I have to say, ’bout that. I never comment in these things, and don’t really think it makes a difference whether I put my two cents in, or not. Everyone already has their own theory, and everybody wants to be right. It just so happens that I am. lol But, it did say “speak your mind”, and I guess I had an opinion. And now you have it. Hope I helped. Enjoy.

    • spelling corrector says:

      wow you must have allot of time on your hands! u r meant to write a comment not an essay

  82. Petee says:

    Hi.. Harold the reason the person said you are the idiot is because the persons name was idiot so they were using that to they’re advantage!
    sorry to break it to ya.

  83. Ace says:

    I got the photographic perspective right away. It was just obvious.

  84. Duh says:

    Those who didn’t get it right away are bound to claim that most people won’t get it right away. It’s how you convince yourself you’re not a retard…

  85. R. Johnson says:

    Ha. for the first half a second, I thought I was looking at a raft on a pool. and before the second was up, I wondered why the lady in pink wasn’t splashing, and since I already had the perspective right, I think I realized it was a gym mat at about the 1.5 second mark, and then I wondered what about the picture was supposed to be an illusion. I never considered that many people thought pinky was seated. My brain just registered it atypically, I suppose.

  86. Lightbringer says:

    The girl in pink is sitting against the wall to stretch her legs while the other is simply sitting to relax her feet. This angle was shot from above, and you can see the lights’ reflections on the gym’s floor to determine this. To the untrained eye, it may fool you to believe otherwise and thus is “the illusion”.

  87. Laura says:

    It surprises me how dumb some people are, like saying “I’m a professional photographer, she is sitting against a picture”, when she obviously laying down. I’ve seen this picture before, I think it was in TIME, and they even say, it was shot from ABOVE. Her back would NOT be able to be that straight and long if she was sitting up. It’s easy to tell that she is lying down, and the lights also give it away. It amazes me how people refuse to think that she could possibly be laying down. Lol

  88. DavidLee says:

    Swan ….. you WAY overthought this very simple picture. (HINT: It’s not a painting as you claimed.)

    The focus, or attention point, is the girls, not the far right of the picture as you said. There SHOULD be nothing at all to even grab your attention over there …. unless an exercise mat laying on the floor intriques you. (HINT: The entire illusion can be figured out by studying the 2 girls. Nothing else in the entire picture is necessary to make the illusion work.)

    There is nothing at all wrong with “the thing the girl ……. is siting on”, which is, as mentioned above, an exercise mat. (HINT: Don’t worry about if the “foam is elongated past where it should be”. The mat’s dimension & shape is correct, and wasting time at the far right will only lead to a false explanation, based on something which doesn’t exist (the elongated foam). That will confuse you enough, as it obviously did, so you then can’t see the image content which explains the title of this article.)

    I believe there are plenty enough hints above to allow you to figure out what’s REALLY going on here. But if that still fails, then just look back at the several dozen replies made before your “painting is not perfect” & “foam is elongated” claims. The correct explanation had already been posted multiple times before your reply.

    Sometimes (rather often actually), the correct answer to some specific question is amazingly simple. Over-thinking this type of deal will almost always form an overly-complicated conclusion which is 180 degrees in the wrong direction from the REAL answer. (HINT: The girl in pink is laying on her back, her legs up against a wall, with a camera looking down from up above her.)

    Nothing else in the entire picture is really necessary to figure out whats going on here. See how simple the REAL answer can often be. :) :)

  89. crack heads says:

    OMG
    Argentina’s Valeria Pereyra, bottom center, lying on the floor, stretches her legs against a wall prior to competing in the women’s individual apparatus event at the South American Games in Medellin, Colombia, Wednesday, March 24, 2010. (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)

  90. Phyllis Watkins says:

    Are you all daft?! The first thing I noticed was that the “girl” in pink looking sideways IS A GUY!! And the expression “chick” for young woman is just the other side of the British “bird” for young woman. Bird, chick, get it? It’s the same thing but WTH, who cares?

  91. ale says:

    wow i got that the first time i saw it

  92. Mitchy says:

    The guys that thought this was a painting are in fact, idiots. Why would someone paint a picture of that, from above no less? This pic is pretty obvious as to whats going on.

  93. squeal says:

    this photo is taken from above. The girl is laying on her back with her feet up the wall in which the photographer is leaning over

  94. idiots.. says:

    wow.. you guys are really stupid.. it’s not a painting, the girl in the pink is laying on the floor with her feet against the wall.
    can no one else tell that it was taken from a camera put at an angle up on a wall? >.>

  95. LC says:

    The over head lights reflecting on the blue mat immediately give it away.

  96. Botts says:

    I hate duckface…it is the stupidest pose of all time and not attractive…

    • 4you says:

      Botts is a Butt Face everyone should hate Botts for simply hating. Hes just pissed his brain did not get it. Stupid Botts

    • Cupcakes says:

      She’s not making the duckface idiot. She’s simply looking sideways. I know because I make the duck face. I bet you tried it and it just made you look worse so now you’re hating on it.

    • smart says:

      WOW are all of you really THAT stupid??? Take a good look – the girl on the mat is an avatar.

      SHE IS NOT REAL.

      neither is the entire mat or the red metal and chains holding it there. All just a computer animation.

    • Victoria says:

      I agree that the duckface looks VERY stupid on girls… But with Jimmy…images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwWHxvPy7a3q33qmehEdUuZ6w2uWHOY7tza50pshzTX-dKvWppuA

  97. Dan says:

    Thats not a painting… the girl is laying on her back, stretching her legs on the wall. The picture is being taken from an above point of view.

    Stupid people on the internet never ceases to amuse me.

  98. Mark Lowery says:

    I have to start getting my images from you, I have a funny section but know I may add a Illusion section. Reminds me how i use to just stare at pictures to figure out what it actually is.

  99. David says:

    The chick is laying on her back. Geez, it’s obvious. You can seen the lines where the mat is pushed down around her.

    • Jaime says:

      that’s not a mat she’s laying on that’s a concrete floor painted blue. if you knew anything about laying concrete you would know that the ripples on the edge where it meets the wall are float and trowel marks. the only mat there is the one that the other girl is sitting on. the bars are bolted down to the blue concrete. you can’t bolt down chains to a mat.

  100. nick says:

    Grammar Rocks-2 l’s in the word “calling”. Mkay?

  101. brooke says:

    the chick in the bottom is laying down with her legs up

  102. KT says:

    She is sitting upright against a painting/mural on the wall. Floor mats used in gymnastics do not look that hard, nor do they reflect light in such a way. Light reflecting off of a floor mat is much more dull, like a matte finish. If she was lying on a mat, you would also see the mat depress around her.

    • Emily says:

      It’s not a floor mat. Or a painting. Thats just a blue floor, with a mat that the other chick is sitting on. You can easily see the dimensions on the chain and mat. Why would there be a mat on a mat? AND walls don’t reflect that much… you can clearly see the ceiling lights. It’s the floor.

  103. KH says:

    Wow, some of you are real idiots. There is no mural, there is no illusion. She is laying on her back on the ground mat, her legs are against a side wall, and the picture was taken from above. See the lights reflecting off the mat? See the shadows from the other gymnast? This really is not that impressive of a picture…interesting, but not an amazing illusion. Use your common sense.

  104. Rocket says:

    That’s cool, now come paint my wall!

  105. Jeff says:

    This photo was taken from above looking down at the floor. The girl in pink is laying on her back with her legs going up the wall — stretching. The person with shoe off is simply sitting on the green mat icing their foot.

  106. tiffdim1 says:

    What im finding to be so funny is all the people correcting other peoples grammar. Out of all of them none of them had correct spelling. And im not understanding why this wouldnt b considered an illusion. The picture makes a false impression…painting or not its still an illusion.

  107. speaker says:

    look at where the supposed “mat” meets the floor and consider it now…its some sort of cement based mural or other structure and she is just resting her back on the wall…you’re supposed to think you smart seeing that she has her back to the ground when in reality she really doesn’t…just pay attention a little

  108. Jfhkf says:

    The grl in pink back on ground feet on wall figured tht fast

  109. juanio says:

    Look at the edge where the mat meets the wall. The lack of shadows where the mat just touches the wall, and evidence of shadows where the mat is raised or folded convinces me girl is laying on back with legs up against the wall.

  110. swtor says:

    those illusions are pretty cool, there’s a guy in new york that paints what look like holes in the ground, and they look soooo real

  111. hass says:

    yall is so dumb she is layn on the floor with her legs up on the wall damn think stay in school people.. there is no painting no nothing just her LAYING ON THE FLOOR WITH HER LEGS UP ON THE WALL

  112. Imagineer says:

    Neither of the two gymnists is closer to the camera. One gymnast has both feet on the blue floor. The other is lying on the blue floor with her legs raised up on a concrete wall. You are looking down on them.. they are at the same level

  113. exgymnast says:

    The blue tarp is down on the floor, the gymnast is laying down with her feet up pointing her toes. The White on the floor is chalk creating the illusion of clouds. The green is the landing mat which is under the uneven bars where they hit after dismounting off of them. The girl in red/black is icing her ankle. The photographer is in the stands or observing area above where most of the parents, spectators and photographers are during practice and a meet. Only the competitors, coaches and such are allowed on the floor. Hence why they were able to get this shot. I have a similar shot from when I was younger with one person standing up and the other (me) laying in the same type pose. Rundown… tarp, landing mat, chalk and good timing.

  114. Dave Sarcasticon says:

    Wow people, it is clearly a thick green mat glued to the blue wall. The girl icing her ankle has used Velcro to effortlessly stick herself to the mat. Also notice how the equipment is securely attached to the wall with a chain, pulled tight by the weight!

    Also to exgymnast above, it is NOT chalk but reflecting white lights!! If it were chalk, it would obviously be all onerous that perfectly clean green mat!!!

  115. Maire says:

    I am sorry..I will be good and admit I am DUMB..would somebody explain what I am looking at?? Maybe I need my eyes checked..cuz i do NOT get it

  116. JazzAbelle says:

    LOL, the chick is laying down on the blue mat with her legs crossed on the wall, as numerous others have pointed out correctly. (The lights have created the illusion of clouds and the other chick icing her ankle is just there). ^.^ Cool shot though…

  117. Leon says:

    She has her legs on the wall lieing on the floor and the other is sitting on a normal mat the camra was taken on the roof

  118. Marc says:

    To all the people that said its a girl laying down with her feet up against the wall are right…Bravo!! To all the people that said anything else otherwise are all the ones that are stupid…cmon look better. Buy some glasses cause you need them. It was taken from up above them lol.

  119. Tellie says:

    the girl against the wall has her legs up and is against it upside down. the picture was tooken from above lls duh

  120. Kory says:

    I’m sorry. But the ignorance of the people commenting on this is absolutely astounding. The girl at the bottom (wearing the pink) is lying on her back with her legs stretched out on the wall in order to stretch, while the girl wearing the red on top, is just sitting on the mat is just sitting there, looking off in a different direction. There is no “painting” or computer changes of any kind. Just a photographer up top, looking down at the girl in pink. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

  121. troy sircelj says:

    the girl is laying or sitting on the wall with her legs on the wall and the guy is sitting on the mat

  122. Holls says:

    Wow, not many people actually understood her position. It’s not a painting. The girl in the pink has her back against the floor, and her legs are against the wall. The person in the red is sitting up on level ground.

  123. ChrisM says:

    To all the people that think the “Chile” girl is fake… My high school gym must have been the only one with fluorescent light fixtures….

  124. ChrisM says:

    “Dave Sarcasticon says:
    September 28, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Also to exgymnast above, it is NOT chalk but reflecting white lights!! If it were chalk, it would obviously be all onerous that perfectly clean green mat!!!”

    that mat isn’t clean. that person in the chile shirt deff. sh!t themselves once they realized they weren’t the ones on the floor.

Speak Your Mind

You can add some images too.

Pinterest