oh the truth hurts!!

Henke · Post by **Henke** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:40 am

Yes, poor Santa.
He died when trying to visit the millions and millions of homes of good Christian children in one day. After having invented the flying reindeer who could run at close to the speed of light, he forgot to invent a protective suit that could stand the G-forces around 3000 x gravity and the 10 000 degrees of heat created by the drag of the thousands of tons of Christmas presents traveling trough the atmosphere at the speed of light... RIP

(anyone remember and have a link to that site where all the facts are?)

Post by **Dale** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:41 am

Henke wrote:Yes, poor Santa.
He died when trying to visit the millions and millions of homes of good Christian children in one day. After having invented the flying reindeer who could run at close to the speed of light, he forgot to invent a protective suit that could stand the G-forces around 3000 x gravity and the 10 000 degrees of heat created by the drag of the thousands of tons of Christmas presents traveling trough the atmosphere at the speed of light... RIP

(anyone remember and have a link to that site where all the facts are?)

Disproving the existence of Santa. What could be fun and more of an intellectual challenge?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:49 am

Since Santa is dead, everything is discounted.

Post by **Dale** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:08 am

Wombat wrote:Since Santa is dead, everything is discounted.

Yes. I'm looking forward to scoring some bargains.

Bothrops · Post by **Bothrops** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:15 am

That pic is hilarious!

amar · Post by **amar** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:27 am

I like this one too.

Lambchop · Post by **Lambchop** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:28 am

That's just WRONG! You are all very disturbed people.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:24 am

That's so funny... hahah... not.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:53 am

Fear not, children! Santa's not dead! NORAD's already preparing to track his journey on Christmas Eve!

http://www.noradsanta.org/en/home.htm

Redwolf

Anstapa · Post by **Anstapa** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:38 pm

NORAD may be tracking him but the Home Land Security still wants him to have a passport if he is flying into the United States, if he isn't already on a no fly list. Now if he was to land in say Windsor, Ontario Canada and wants to drive the reindeer and sleigh through the tunnel or over the bridge then all he needs is a valid photo id and birth certificate from the country he is leaving.

Anstapa

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:08 pm

For you naysayers out there, (Annie, Lamby), let me explain.

The pictures are actually "Photoshops". That is, someone took a picture of a child crying, (a common enough occurance for little ones), and by the use of sophisticated computer banks transplanted those images onto another image giving the impression that the child was suffering as a result of the background image. No children were injured or mentally unbalanced in the making of the images.
The quality of subsequent image depends on the ability of the "Photoshopper" to cut the child image from it's original context using a technique called "feathering". Too much feathering will leave a fuzzy area around the original cut image. Too little will leave a hard line around the image.
The other technique, of equal importance, is the lighting of the subjects. Matching the lights and shadows between the images are of utmost importance in convincing the viewer.
Mastery of these two techniques alone will give the viewers hours of pleasure.

Thank you.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 pm

Flyingcursor wrote:For you naysayers out there, (Annie, Lamby), let me explain.

The pictures are actually "Photoshops". That is, someone took a picture of a child crying, (a common enough occurance for little ones), and by the use of sophisticated computer banks transplanted those images onto another image giving the impression that the child was suffering as a result of the background image. No children were injured or mentally unbalanced in the making of the images.
The quality of subsequent image depends on the ability of the "Photoshopper" to cut the child image from it's original context using a technique called "feathering". Too much feathering will leave a fuzzy area around the original cut image. Too little will leave a hard line around the image.
The other technique, of equal importance, is the lighting of the subjects. Matching the lights and shadows between the images are of utmost importance in convincing the viewer.
Mastery of these two techniques alone will give the viewers hours of pleasure.

Thank you.

I know that. I still don't find them funny.

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:43 pm

anniemcu wrote:
Flyingcursor wrote:For you naysayers out there, (Annie, Lamby), let me explain.

The pictures are actually "Photoshops". That is, someone took a picture of a child crying, (a common enough occurance for little ones), and by the use of sophisticated computer banks transplanted those images onto another image giving the impression that the child was suffering as a result of the background image. No children were injured or mentally unbalanced in the making of the images.
The quality of subsequent image depends on the ability of the "Photoshopper" to cut the child image from it's original context using a technique called "feathering". Too much feathering will leave a fuzzy area around the original cut image. Too little will leave a hard line around the image.
The other technique, of equal importance, is the lighting of the subjects. Matching the lights and shadows between the images are of utmost importance in convincing the viewer.
Mastery of these two techniques alone will give the viewers hours of pleasure.

Thank you.
I know that. I still don't find them funny.

I knew you knew this but I enjoy being snarky.

WyoBadger · Post by **WyoBadger** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:55 pm

Snarky.

Now, that's funny.

T