Can you see the baby for the trees?

69

@DavidMeadeLive sent me this lovely illusion.  Can you see the baby?

I like it because I saw the baby’s face and then the rest popped out at me.  Did you get the same experience?

69 comments on “Can you see the baby for the trees?

  1. T9sus4 says:

    Feet first, for me.

  2. Damocles says:

    I’m not sure I’ll ask my Mum.

    [Feet first]

  3. Anonymous says:

    Feet first, too.

  4. I also saw the feet first

  5. Rusty says:

    Arms first. Took a while, but now, of course, I can’t un-see it!

  6. Timdifano says:

    Breech birth for me too.

  7. soonerdvm says:

    I saw the feet first and had to work at it to find the head.

  8. Emma Ryal says:

    Feet first, but only after I turned the picture upside down

  9. M says:

    Nice!

    Feet first

  10. I started out searching for a much smaller baby hidden in the details, but as soon as I entertained an alternative hypothesis (that the baby might be big enough to fill most of the image), then I saw it.

  11. Mer Lacuna says:

    Toes, then the rest followed. Interestingly there is a sad looking cock directly west of those toes that seems to be penetrating the tree’s trunk. If you look carefully, for perhaps less than 30 minutes, you might also note a scrotum directly west of the knee; slightly south (as one would expect) of the cock. [Don’t look at it if you wish to avoid being unable to not see it. Why do warnings so often come too late?]

  12. Amy says:

    I honestly couldn’t see the baby until I read the comments but it was face first for me

  13. Breech for me too: feet first.

  14. Tom Ruffles says:

    Toes first, then followed the shape round to the head.

  15. I saw the feet first.🙂

  16. Feet first, then hands. Did not see the face until after reading the caption.

  17. Sweet! Face first for me.

  18. Dave says:

    Can anyone help me here??
    I am trying for last 1 hour but no baby has popped up.

  19. ldymac says:

    Saw face first,then whole babay. Too much detail – obviously faked.

  20. SDGlyph says:

    First saw the weird and unnaturally spiky branch shapes, which led me to the feet, and then oh yeah there it is.

  21. Anonymosity says:

    I first looked at the spce surrounded by the crossing branches (above the couple). When I realised that it didn’t turn into a baby, the feet resolved. The baby ensued.

  22. funda62 says:

    I had to have help as I was looking for a big round face and to me this looks more like a fetus on the ultrasound. Cool photo nonetheless.

  23. Physicalist says:

    Took a while. Face first.

  24. Nathan says:

    I saw the feet first, but if I hadn’t been looking for a baby I don’t think I would have seen it at all.

  25. riffy says:

    I saw the feet first.

  26. Izzi says:

    I’m another breech

  27. Tom Green says:

    Head

  28. Henry Ruddle says:

    I saw the cock first and as I was wondering what sort of perverse photo Richard had posted, the baby appeared and I realized he is an upstanding chap after all.

  29. Brendan Beckett says:

    Feet here

  30. fluffy says:

    Feet first, and I only knew to look for it because you said what to look for.

  31. Mickey D says:

    Feet first because I first looked for it in the middle of the tree…

  32. Lyvvie says:

    I saw its belly first because I thought, that’s a weird looking branch. Then I looked right then left, so…

  33. Someone help that poor abused tree, everyone forgets about the tree.

  34. guest says:

    I could see nothing the first time. Took another look the next day out popped the feet and everything else followed.
    Maybe we could design a personality test according to what feature shows first.

  35. Joanne says:

    @Henry Ruddlem. Was that the ‘cock’ and ‘upstanding chap’ pun intented? Heehee!

  36. Joanne says:

    @Henry Ruddle. Was that the ‘cock’ and ‘upstanding chap’ pun intented? Heehee!

  37. Arms first… I saw a funnily-looking branch, and then I examined it further – that led me to the arms, and the rest followed later.

  38. Sili says:

    No, I can’t see the baby for the semi-erect penis.

  39. Gabriela Bernal says:

    I saw the face first. Until I saw the comments here I noticed that he also arms and feet.

    Gabriela Bernal,

    South Korea

  40. Eric N says:

    knees first -> feet -> whole baby

  41. baby bassinet…

    […]Can you see the baby for the trees? « Richard Wiseman[…]…

  42. evenflo baby gate…

    […]Can you see the baby for the trees? « Richard Wiseman[…]…

  43. Can anyone tell us who the original artist was?

  44. Anonymous says:

    I saw a baby and a lake

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s