Luke, I am your father CHANGED, to NO, I am your father......

a reply to: vlawde

I agree with the link someone previously posted that said it was a confusion caused by how Americans roll words together especially when conjunctions are involved and the fact that one word ends in D and the other begins in T, two letters which can blend together when being said quickly. Combine that with the fact that a major portion of the US, no matter the accent, will change the A sound in AND when it falls in a sentence like this. Some change it to an Uhn sound, others to an Ihnd sound.

Sex AND the City (Sex Ihnd tha city)

Sex ANDTHE City

Sex An Dthe City

Sex An The City

Sex In the City

For me personally, pronouncing the AND fully in the title just sounds funny. Like I am trying to be a snobbish person. My accent rolls it into Sex Ihnd tha City. The D rolls into the T. When I record it on my phone and play it back for people they hear it as Sex In The City. It's funny how accents shape how we see words or titles.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: hidingthistime

a reply to: hidingthistime

Are you seriously agreeing with yourself over and over again? It doesn't matter how much bias confirmation you look for, the physical evidence disproves your point of view.

What are you talking about? This is an entire thread FULL of evdence you refuse to even look at. All the old lion and lamb memes, the actor from star wars even says it was Luke!

If we were in a court of law, 20 eye witnesees seeing the EXACT same things, would be one heck of a strong case, as evidence can so easly be tampered with or disappear!

a reply to: raymundoko

Luke, sounds nothing like NO.

Wolf sounds nothing like lion,

The car logos..... come on!

Austrailia....just no....

a reply to: raymundoko

Being agnostic is not a logical fallacy at all, in fact it makes great sense. And there would be no evidence if such a thing actually took place.(except large groups of people who swear the exact same things used to be different)

And what point of view are you refering to?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: raymundoko

Being agnostic is not a logical fallacy at all, in fact it makes great sense. And there would be no evidence if such a thing actually took place.(except large groups of people who swear the exact same things used to be different)

And what point of view are you refering to?

exactly, we all rem3mber the same things!


If one person imagined the kidneys inside the liver, and another the liver on the left, and another closed ribs with cartilage in beteen them all, or the heart on the right, then I would say they were memory problems, but when 20 people asked, all say mirror mirror, etc, then it can not be denied that something is up.

WHAT caused this on the other hand, a this point can be in no way proven, only guessed at.

Can we we prove it is happening?

I myself have way to much evidence to deny it now, even though I wish I could, and tried my best to do so for quite a few years.

a reply to: hidingthistime

No, the actor says Luke when out of context of the film...why can't you grasp that?

If we were in a court of law, 20 eye witnesees seeing the EXACT same things, would be one heck of a strong case, as evidence can so easly be tampered with or disappear!

The case would be thrown out because their is no consistency. You remember x x y and z. Someone else remembers x c y and z, someone else remembers x x q z. You are all just overlapping what you agree on for confirmation bias.

a reply to: hidingthistime

Luke is only used when out of context of the film, for the one millionth time. It was used on merchandise even. If you fail to understand this you should educate yourself more on literature and context.

a reply to: hidingthistime

No you don't, you remember SOME of the same things. Then you all have false memories that don't agree with each other or the physical evidence. You are just picking the things you agree on to support your case. It's circular logic wrapped up in circular logic.

This next part is going to be blunt, brace yourself.

Pertaining to anatomy changes: This shows a huge disconnect with the real world on your part if you think anatomy changed between where you think you came from and where we are. The massive implications of that one change alone would most probably indicate that life evolved extremely differently, and there would be far more drastic, drastic changes associated with your "shift". For you to fail to see that is a complete ignorance of science and reality.

If your friends think that it is actually a possibility for our anatomy to have been different, then I suggest you find new friends as you have surrounded yourself with buffoons.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Oh boy. You don't even see the logical fallacy in your explanation...

a reply to: raymundoko

No, the actor is saying it in context....





And no, people are all remebering a and b. Thats it!



You make such determined statements with out investigating. Also you show nothing to back it up.

a reply to: hidingthistime

Physical evidence backs me up. You can't say I am not showing anything to back me up when the evidence is on my side. I've also linked peer reviewed papers on faulty memory, shared faulty memory etc. You probably haven't read a single one.

And no, he is saying it in context of the interview. For the millionth time, "Luke, I am your father", puts everything in context for those not currently watching the movie. For you to continue to use it to support your case shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how the English language works. You may be able to speak it and read it, but it appears the laws of the language are lost on you.

Movie Misquotes, Star Wars tops the list

Edit:

And no, people are all remebering a and b. Thats it!

Then you don't read your own threads. Half of the ME people don't even agree on the things they mis remember. Berenstein, Berensteen, Bernstein, Bernsteen..all different ways people who think they have experienced ME are CERTAIN it was spelled in their "timelines". You are just choosing to ignore the massive holes in the conversation among supporters of ME.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: hidingthistime

Physical evidence backs me up. You can't say I am not showing anything to back me up when the evidence is on my side. I've also linked peer reviewed papers on faulty memory, shared faulty memory etc. You probably haven't read a single one.

And no, he is saying it in context of the interview. For the millionth time, "Luke, I am your father", puts everything in context for those not currently watching the movie. For you to continue to use it to support your case shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how the English language works. You may be able to speak it and read it, but it appears the laws of the language are lost on you.

And no, people are all remebering a and b. Thats it!

Then you don't read your own threads. Half of the ME people don't even agree on the things they mis remember. Berenstein, Berensteen, Bernstein, Bernsteen..all different ways people who think they have experienced ME are CERTAIN it was spelled in their "timelines". You are just choosing to ignore the massive holes in the conversation among supporters of ME.

you are just making stuff up now! Lol I have never seen anyone argue Bernsteen or Berensteen...

It is always Berenstein!

I also refuted the memory articles over and over with my MILK example...

originally posted by: hidingthistime
Witnessing an event and recalling it in a different way is much different than ingrained memories though.

I have use the word "Milk" for an example before... it is ingrained in your brain through nearly every day use. It is a common knowledge word, we dont even have to think about.

If tomorrow it shows up as always being spelled "merlk", people will notice, and it is in no way the same as two different people witnessing the same event and having a different perspective.

MILK, is burned in our brain, ad MERLK, would sure as hell look alien!

a reply to: hidingthistime

The fact you think your milk analogy backs up your stance is one of your problems. You seem to lack all logic. Surely you see the difference between daily affirmation and recalled memory...

You obviously didn't read the Berenstain Bears thread....doesn't look too good for you.

a reply to: raymundoko

Is that the logical fallacy you can't seem to specify?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

I already pointed out the first one, please don't embarrass yourself.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: hidingthistime

The fact you think your milk analogy backs up your stance is one of your problems. You seem to lack all logic. Surely you see the difference between daily affirmation and recalled memory...

You obviously didn't read the Berenstain Bears thread....doesn't look too good for you.

I ran a daycare for 12 years, I am the oldest sibling by nearly a decade,, who had to watch the cartoons for years and years after I out grew them, I am also a mother who went through another 10 years of recently reading the books and watching the shows...

If thats not enough repition for you, then clearly you are just dead set on being unreasonable, and in no way open to other options despite any evidence you will ever be shown.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

I already pointed out the first one, please don't embarrass yourself.

he is not the one embarrassing himself, as you made zero sense to me.

a reply to: raymundoko

Embarass MY self?

Your "argument from silence" fallacy doesn't even apply.

To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.[3]

The only one making a logical fallacy is you excluding a possibility based on your lack of knowledge on it.

a reply to: hidingthistime

I am not surprised you don't understand.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

How laughable.

DutchMasterChief

That is by definition the argument from silence.

"Well, it doesn't NOT say that, so therefore it could be true." Please, by all means though continue to look ignorant.

The only one making a logical fallacy is you excluding a possibility based on your lack of knowledge on it.

How can one have knowledge of that which does not exist?? You are running in circles guy.

a reply to: hidingthistime

Repetition has nothing to do with it...you seriously haven't read one single scientific paper that has been linked.

a reply to: raymundoko

To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on presence.

The fallacy does not mean what you think it means at all.

I also didn't draw any conclusion, and certainly not one based on the absence of something. You did. This fallacy applies to you.......

How can one have knowledge of that which does not exist??

How can you know it doesn't exist if you have no knowledge of it? According to your "logic", half the things we take for granted now shouldn't exist.