It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Question for which Berenstein Skeptics Have No Answer

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Does anyone have a year for when people first started pointing out the name is currently spelled wrong?

I find it terribly suspect that the first public outrage I'm seeing online is when the news came out that Jan Berenstein died February 24, 2012 in PA and people started pointing out the name was spelled wrong in the death news!

Also find it suspect that 9 of the 13 census records for BerenstAins are for folks in PA, meanwhile there are hundreds of BerenstEins scattered across the USA.

Thus, it seems there's only 1 (or possibly 2 at most) BerenstAin family bloodline in the ENTIRE USA based on census records from ancestry.com WHAT ARE THE ODDS?!




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

I did!

She expects them to still say stEin and I do not. She will take a pic either way.

I understand the concept of timeline shifts. But imagine if she produces a book showing stEin...!

You will then say she photo-shopped it, right?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
As Jimmy Hendrix would say, "Excuse me, while I kiss this guy!"


originally posted by: NewzNose
I went to work yesterday and asked 17 people, all over the age of 35, how do they recollect the spelling. Every one of them said the same, stEin ! Then I told them about this phenominon, and none of them had heard stAin and, were quite shocked, when researching online!


I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but -STEIN is a MUCH more common name suffix than -STAIN.

Holstein
Einstein
Epstein
Brownstein
Frankenstein
Weinstein
Dickenstein
Saperstein
Silverstein
Blumenstein

Jewish Surnames

I could find any that end with -stain.

People usually read the first part of a word and get lazy and gloss over the ending.



There is something to this, even if you don't think so.


Yes. It's called misremembering. I always thought it was -stein, too. But I have the common sense to acknowledge that I obviously misremembered it.

On the pics of the stacks of books. If the timeline has changed, HOW could both pictures exist? Obviously one is photoshopped. www.abovetopsecret.com... The -stein books picture is smaller, so the details are conveniently obscure...

And WHY would an insignificant detail like ONE letter of ONE family name change?
edit on 9/30/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Just a theory. If the timeline was altered, does this mean that the books title could have changed physically? This would mean that you wouldn't be able to find a book with the Stein ending.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
Just a theory. If the timeline was altered, does this mean that the books title could have changed physically? This would mean that you wouldn't be able to find a book with the Stein ending.


I believe that is the going thought process. We have the capabilities to use interdenominational travel, and the best thing we could do with that knowledge is change a kids book title.

# Occams Razor.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
But imagine if she produces a book showing stEin...!

You will then say she photo-shopped it, right?


No, then you would be completely incorrect, and it would be a worldwide conspiracy to change all the other books that exist in the world and they (the ubiquitous 'them') would have forgotten about your one friend.

If she finds a book marked Berenstein, I'd run far and fast. "they" will be after you soon.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
Just a theory. If the timeline was altered, does this mean that the books title could have changed physically? This would mean that you wouldn't be able to find a book with the Stein ending.


Yes, this is what most people seem to be arguing.

The theory is that the timeline changed and the books and everything else physically changed because this is a different reality. So, I don't understand why people are looking for evidence of the "Berenstein" spelling in "this timeline" because it shouldn't exist. They seem to want to have it both ways.

This leaves as the only evidence people's memories with some people's memories deemed more valid than others (such as the surviving Berenstains.)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but -STEIN is a MUCH more common name suffix than -STAIN.




And I don't remember if this has been posted or not but this is Michael Berenstain's explanation of the name:


Q: So how did the Berenstain name come to be? Your website mentions that the spelling was an immigration officer’s attempt at phonetically spelling “an accented version of the traditional Jewish name ‘Bernstein'”?

A: [My great-grandparents] were Ukrainian Jews who emigrated [to the U.S.] in the late 19th century, fleeing the pogroms and persecution of Jews in Ukraine at that time. And they pronounced the name with a Slavic-coloured pronunciation. They pronounced it something like “Ber’nsheytn.” The family tradition was simply that [Berenstain] was an attempt to phonetically spell that particular pronunciation of the name.

news.nationalpost.com...

So that could mean this is just one mistake one immigration official made with one couple and this is the only family in America that spell "Bernstein" that way.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Oannes
Just a theory. If the timeline was altered, does this mean that the books title could have changed physically? This would mean that you wouldn't be able to find a book with the Stein ending.


I believe that is the going thought process. We have the capabilities to use interdenominational travel, and the best thing we could do with that knowledge is change a kids book title.

# Occams Razor.


But I can't even wrap my head around what people are claiming. So there are two timelines. In the "new" timeline is Michael Berenstain who was always Michael Berenstain which is why he remembers it that way. As well as the box of books in the attic since 1965 that always said "Berenstain" because that's this timeline. Which I suppose means there is a "Michael Berentein" left in the original timeline as well as an original "me" who could go find all sorts of books titled "Berenstein." So what's the deal with the people in this "new" timeline who "remember" the "old" timeline? How is that supposed to work? Why do they "remember" and (for example) Michael Berenstain does not?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

That is a very believable explanation! But not nearly as conspiracy-obsessed as an alternate timeline! LOL!

As regards your other post here, you make an excellent point! If this were a new timeline, NO ONE would "remember" Berenstein! If Michael doesn't remember waking up one day with a new name, NONE of us would remember.




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Yeah -- that confuses me, also. Why would my memory be from the "stain" timeline, but other people's memories come from the "stein" timeline?

As I said in a previous post, I have a distinct reason why I remember it as "stain". About 30 years or so ago, I had a younger 10 or 12 year old cousin who had the books, and made a joke (the kind of joke a 10 or 12 year old boy would make) about "Bare Stains" -- "Bare Stains" to him (in his joke) being what some people call "skid marks" on their underwear.

So I distinctly remember "BerenSTAIN". If I live in this timeline with all of these people who say it was "stein", then why would I remember "stain"?


edit on 9/30/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: TombEscaper

Ok, the fallacy sustained because the top places people originally went to read or buy that material, those sites had already mispronounced it. There would be some that did recognize the mistake, but passed it off and never brought it up.


This misread/mispronunciation stems back to long before "sites," as in websites. This goes back to those who remember the Berensteins from the 70's, 80's, and 90's, if not before. And again, there are many testimonies of people with "stein" in their own name that remember with certainty the BerenSTEIN Bears, because their own names were mispronounced either "steen" if it should have been "stine," or vice versa. Hence, they (and many others) were unsure whether to pronounce the Bears as BerenSTEEN or BerenSTINE, because they saw the very "stein" that was in their very own name.

How does the skeptic explain this? Will he hold to the insistence that such people are either so self-deluded that they have false memories of these things, or were so imperceptive that they misread "stain" as "stein"? If one's name is "Steve," will his mind automatically cause him to see "stove" as "Steve"? Or "inn" as "Ann"? Of course not. These people full well recognized the "stein" in Berenstein. To dismiss the many testimonials of such people is absurd.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19869801]Vasteel

Why hasn't the Coasterbuzz thread always been "stain" - here?


A worthy question, and one that we can only speculate upon, as with everything else involved with this. The best answer is that just like almost anything in life, sometimes things somehow "slip through the cracks."

An equally worthy question is - how, in 2001, when the internet was alive and well, could 10 out of 10 (and countless other) people have still been obliviously misreading/misspelling the name, without there ever arising an issue about this for another 10+ years?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TombEscaper

Actually, it's been an issue for Stan since he was a child..


Well, actually the earliest I know about it is in my mother and father’s autobiography where my dad wrote a section about when he was in elementary school. His elementary school teacher said that his name was spelled incorrectly and that she was changing it to “Berenstein,” and that she wouldn’t recognize the spelling of his name in her class because there was no such name. So it goes back pretty far, the issue.


news.nationalpost.com...


That actually solidifies the "stein" position. It is an article from August of 2015, talking about some schoolmates mispronouncing the name. Where were the "Berenstains'" clarification on this mass-misspelling of their name, by millions, in the 80's, or 90's, or 2001? Is there any historical evidence that a clarification ever happened? Why was no clarification ever made? Why does Mike Berenstain himself act as if this is something that has suddenly exploded? Surely he would have been aware that the masses were mistaking the family name throughout decades past? Was he oblivious to this? How could he have been?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: TombEscaper
The question that has truly been avoided or answered insufficiently for 6 pages now is the one posed in the original post: If so many thousands or millions of people had been "misreading" the word for so many years, why is there no documented historical evidence that this was ever an issue?


Actually, that question works for both sides of the argument.

Why is it that this belief has gradually developed and only relatively recently?

I've asked this before and gotten no answer: If there are millions of observant people that can remember the other timeline then why wasn't there a day when everyone pulled out their BB books and suddenly saw the name change? Why does the OP only talk about a non-specific past?

You should be able to easily pinpoint that to the specific time this supposedly happened.

If people are only reporting childhood memories as adults that seems to me to be evidence that this has to do with confusion and/or memory issues---probably being exacerbated by false memories being inadvertently planted via the internet discussions.


This is not so. I have a 14 year old relative who remembers watching the newer version of the cartoon as recently as 5 or 6 years ago, and is insistent that it was Berenstein. And yet, there are others who claim they remember somehow "realizing" the name change 10 or more years ago. What we are dealing with here is not a concrete "moment" when everything changed. This seems to involve individual perception in relation to some sort of "foggy" merging between realities.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TombEscaper
...If one's name is "Steve," will his mind automatically cause him to see "stove" as "Steve"? Or "inn" as "Ann"? Of course not. These people full well recognized the "stein" in Berenstein. To dismiss the many testimonials of such people is absurd.

Well, no.

People who are accustomed to names like that ending in "-stein" may be inclined to mis-remember (or even mis-read) it as "-stein", because that "-stein" ending is what they had been subjected to all of their lives. There are no other examples of people with names ending in "-stain", therefore people are not expecting to see "-stain", and some of those people might mis-read or mis-rmember it.

Even after the fact, if there were kids who were fans of the books, but years after were only subjected to names ending in "-stein", then some of those people may begin to mis-remember the name. They may have seen it as "Berenstain" as a kid, but years of seeing the very common surname suffix of "-stein" may make them forget that it was "Berenstain".


edit on 9/30/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TombEscaper
What we are dealing with here is not a concrete "moment" when everything changed. This seems to involve individual perception in relation to some sort of "foggy" merging between realities.


Once again, any evidence gathered either way can support the time shift theory because it's a "foggy" rather than "concrete" merging of the two realities.

I just had a conversation with a 25 year old. He said he remembers it as STAIN from the television show.

He also was of the opinion that I was the victim of major trolling.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Where are you pulling the millions number from?

Don't state your opinion as a fact.

And the fact is the name Berenstain has been around long before the Bears were ever dreamed up.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
As I find the "alternative timeline" topics very fascinating, I decided to do a bit of my own research on the topic. There are several topics on this on ATS, but they are all a zillion miles and almost as many kilometers long and this topic is the most recent one, thus the shortest one for now.

The Berenstein/Berenstain Bears. A wholly new acquaintance to me. I have never personally read these books even as a kid, since the Bears haven't been translated to my native language. Most "bear-related" children's books in my childhood were of Finnish, Swedish or British origin, not American. So I have no recollection of the "old" or "original" spelling of the famous Beren***** Bears. Yet, I wanted to excercise my brain and try to think outside-the-box.

As a popular children's book series in North America, there probably have been quite many internet searches on it ever since the Web search engines were invented. I did a Google Trends search myself, linked to this thread at the post by ItVibrates. The result is actually most interesting. According to it the Google Trends shows quite many searches of the "e" variety (Berenstein) beginning in late 2004 when the Google Trends history data actually begins. However, the "a" variety (Berenstain) searches suddenly appear approximately one year later, in late 2005. Before that the "a" variety obviously wasn't a popular Google search, or it didn't exist at all!

Since late 2005 there have been more and more "a" variety searches each year, and interestingly, less and less "e" variety searches since that date. Somewhere in mid-2009 the new "a" variety or the "new" spelling was already being more popular than the old "e" variety. My conclusion is that the new spelling suddenly appeared in late 2005 for some reason, and it has been more and more popular in Google searches ever since. Very interesting. There could actually be something to this -stein vs. -stain dispute after all!

And then we have the Book Pile photo. The alleged photo of a pile of genuine Berenstein Bears books - posted by occrest in this thread - with the "original" or "e" spelling is very interesting, but I did notice a couple of details which look false and very doctored to me. The alternative photo of the book pile with the "new" or "a" spelling - posted in this thread by Milah - looks original to me. Please let me tell you why.

First: The fourth book from the top: "The Bears' Christmas". This book seems to have a piece of transparent tape added on top of the word "Berensteins", probably holding the book covers together. The yellowed tape makes the text under the tape appear a bit dimmer than the other parts of the text. However, in the "e" variety photo the disputed "e" letter in the middle of the taped area is brighter than the other letters covered by the tape. Actually it's about as bright as the "e" letter on the un-taped part of the book cover. The letter "e" stands out clearly. In the "a" variety photo the letter "a" looks just as dim as the neighboring letters, so this picture is clearly the original one. The word "Berenstains" looks genuine. Bad copy/paste job on the "e" variety photo, I'd say. There are no Berenstein books in this pile.

Second: The 14th book from the top in the "e" spelling photo has its title as "The Berenstein Bears® Get Zealous" (sic!) whereas the same book in the "a" spelling photo has its title as "The Berenstain Bears® Get Jealous" which to me looks like a much more normal title for a children's book. The visible spacing between the words "get" and "zealous" is a bit too small to look balanced to me, it's smaller than the general word spacing and obviously the original letter "J" was replaced with "Z". The person who did the photo editing didn't take into account the fact that in typography the real word spacing between letters "T" and "J" is usually set to be just a tad smaller than the spacing between letters "T" and "Z", in order to look natural and balanced. I have a feeling this edit was made tongue-in-cheek, but it's still a bad copy/paste job, or a visible hint left fully in purpose.

Third: The date imprint "9 11 '01" in the photo, allegedly added by the camera, just like many film cameras of that era could do using a red 7-segment number display in close contact with the film frame lower corner inside the camera. It really looks like a low-res scan of a genuine 80s or 90s photo taken with a film camera. The "a" variety photo doesn't have the date imprint and I can't see any signs of the date being removed by editing, so probably this photo was taken with a digital camera. The date imprint is easy to add with any photo editing software and the date "9 11 '01" looks very suspicious. Yes, this was an extremely sad day for America and the whole world, but in this context even "10 28 '83" or something a bit prior to it would have been a more credible date.

Fourth: The image resolutions. The "e" variety photo is 599x451 pixels in size whereas the "a" variety photo is 1600x1200 pixels, much bigger. The easiest way to hide any possible copy/paste artifacts is to save the edited photo in much lower resolution than the original one. Even I could do that, I guess the real photography professionals wouldn't need to do even this trick.

I'm still on the fence about this. The Google Trends data is interesting and even somewhat conclusive supporting the possible timeline merge. But on the other hand, the only known photo of a pile of Berenstein Bears books seems to be a fake. However, it seems to be a bit-too-clear fake, so here's the conspiracy. What is going on, and who's behind this?

edit on 30.9.2015 by Doc Lithium because: Typos, typos, typos...



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




HOW could both pictures exist?


Simultaneous, paralell timelines that slip every so rarely often.




top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join