*Ahem*
I will just insert this picture...


stare at it long enogh and it will move.

It's moving because it's an animated gif.

YES I LOVE OPTICAL ILLUSIONS.

That picture does look like it's moving, but it's not an animated .gif. (It is a .gif but not animated.)

Oh yeah, I only checked if it was .gif but I didn't check if it had any frames.

You might like this then?

these are for stupid thingummiwuts. if you stare at one place, seriously, nothing will move, nor seem to be moving.

you may stare there, then things will move, but if you keep staring they will stip moving at once.

Look at this, the lines are bent, focus on any line and it straightens.

Theese things are ment to drift

EXPLAIN.

There are 3 bars stacked onto eachother. The top bar is like so, the second back is perpendicular to the top bar and the bottom bar is parallel to the top bar and mostly under it but not directly under it, and is also a little farther back than the top bar.

Does that make sense?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand

A classic one. See if you can explain it.

First I drew some black lines in one direction, then I erased part of it and drew black lines in another direction and erased part of those, and finally I drew some more black lines in a third direction, significantly shorter than the others.

Actually, now that I look at it, this could be a possible shape if the middle piece was flat.

T'is twon is good.

I wonder how people invent these.

CHALLENGE: try making your own optical illusion, without copying someone else's idea!

http://www.bestgame.co.il/zoom.aspx?menutype=1&auto=42155&t=50%20%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%20-%2050%20Optical%20Illusions

go there. it's nice; I liked the pyramid best, the yellow dots, and the 16 circles.

can anyone explain me the missing piece? I know that one for years, yet I never understood it. should cover the same area...

Cool I like the pyramids too - cant explain teh missing peice but the other stuff was good.

For the missing piece, it's just some weird geometry. It has the same area (count the squares) but it's arranged differently. It's interesting because it forms a triangle in both instances that occupy the same points, but the area is the same, believe it or not. It's just neat.

I have not looked at that link, but I am assuming that missing piece is caused by the figure not actually being a triangle. Try using Pythagoras to find the length of the long sides of the two smaller triangle and of the big "triangle".

mathematically, it's correct, and it's impossible. my only guess is that the length of the side of the squares in each  picture is different, but only slightly. jell, you should check out that link.

I have checked it out, it was exactly the picture I was talking about.
IIRC, the pieces contain two triangles. One with sides with length 2 and 5, one with sides with length 3 and 8. This would mean the big "triangle" has sides with length 5 and 13.
Pythagoras: the two small triangles have their third side with a length of sqrt(29) and sqrt(73) respectively, while the big "triangle" should have a third side with length sqrt(194). As you can see, sqrt(29)+sqrt(73) != sqrt(194). In conclusion, the big "triangle" is not a triangle at all, but actually a tetragon. In both images the fourth angle is different, with one having an angle of slightly over 180 degrees and one having an angle of slightly under 180 degrees.

...Everything I fear shall die...

DIE Orly thingymuwat!

Which way would you go?