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 Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

page: 121
136
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: WeSbO

Thanks for sharing! I've often wondered what some of the stars from these films effected by the Mandela Effect remember.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TombEscaper

So you are a troll? Listen, I've been accused of being a troll before and it's unfounded, however your statement is so wildly wrong that I find it improbable you didn't know.


No, it can be considered founded from what I've seen. Calculated antagonizing.

That is opposed to putting forth solid notions and propositions that the disruptive rabble rousers don't really have any valid retorts to, which seems to be your definition of "trolling."



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Like this?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Raxoxane

Is it possible you remember the fact that when she was older, she ....



After Rose returned from her travels, she lived at Rocky Ridge. She built a stone cottage for her parents and moved into the old farmhouse where she continued to write. In the early 1930s she began to work with her mother on the Little House books.

Source
Isn't it plausible that your old memory could have merged the stone cottage she built for her parents with her name? Thereby, in your memory becoming Rose Wilder Lane in a Stone cottage. Over time, the fading of other memories around the books and story blend together again and it becomes Rose Wilder Stone. You remember her name Rose Wilder, you envision the stone cottage, and it finally results in the false combined memory of Rose Wilder Stone as her name.

This is how memory works...especially as time passes. Memory is fluid, it does that, this has been proven scientifically in studies over and over again. What hasn't been proven even once it the creation of a localized warping of the space-time continuum where someone is transported between parallel universes.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: TombEscaper

Like this?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Raxoxane

Is it possible you remember the fact that when she was older, she ....



After Rose returned from her travels, she lived at Rocky Ridge. She built a stone cottage for her parents and moved into the old farmhouse where she continued to write. In the early 1930s she began to work with her mother on the Little House books.

Source
Isn't it plausible that your old memory could have merged the stone cottage she built for her parents with her name? Thereby, in your memory becoming Rose Wilder Lane in a Stone cottage. Over time, the fading of other memories around the books and story blend together again and it becomes Rose Wilder Stone. You remember her name Rose Wilder, you envision the stone cottage, and it finally results in the false combined memory of Rose Wilder Stone as her name.

This is how memory works...especially as time passes. Memory is fluid, it does that, this has been proven scientifically in studies over and over again. What hasn't been proven even once it the creation of a localized warping of the space-time continuum where someone is transported between parallel universes.





Have you considered the fact that not everyone has memories specific enough to give any type of valid response to this? I've probably seen a total of about 5 episodes of Little House on the Prairie in my entire life, when I was around 6. If that's even the show this is talking about. I have no business or reason to wade into that discussion because I don't have a clue what it's even about.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: TombEscaper

Like this?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Raxoxane

Is it possible you remember the fact that when she was older, she ....



After Rose returned from her travels, she lived at Rocky Ridge. She built a stone cottage for her parents and moved into the old farmhouse where she continued to write. In the early 1930s she began to work with her mother on the Little House books.

Source
Isn't it plausible that your old memory could have merged the stone cottage she built for her parents with her name? Thereby, in your memory becoming Rose Wilder Lane in a Stone cottage. Over time, the fading of other memories around the books and story blend together again and it becomes Rose Wilder Stone. You remember her name Rose Wilder, you envision the stone cottage, and it finally results in the false combined memory of Rose Wilder Stone as her name.

This is how memory works...especially as time passes. Memory is fluid, it does that, this has been proven scientifically in studies over and over again. What hasn't been proven even once it the creation of a localized warping of the space-time continuum where someone is transported between parallel universes.





Have you considered the fact that not everyone has memories specific enough to give any type of valid response to this? I've probably seen a total of about 5 episodes of Little House on the Prairie in my entire life, when I was around 6. If that's even the show this is talking about. I have no business or reason to wade into that discussion because I don't have a clue what it's even about.


So, the fact that it shows that it is highly probable that old memories can be confused, and possibly how, is not relevant to the discussion on people remembering things differently and wondering if it is a warp in the space-time continuum as opposed to faulty memory. That type of analysis, to you, is not relevant or apropos to other situations.

I see..... I guess those blinders of yours are more narrow than I thought.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Surely you see your error in logic and reasoning...

Every single issue is people claiming their memory is 100% right, otherwise this wouldn't be a discussion. If people, as I myself have, would accept their memory is faulty they would correct it and move on.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

He's too busy using thesaurus.com to read the scientific peer reviewed articles on false memory and shared false memory.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Indeed. When I first learned that it was "No, I am your father," I accepted "Luke, I am your father" as a false memory, even though I was sure how it was. The video evidence of how it is seemed pretty conclusive. I even watched the film and he said, "No, I am your father." Any doubts that I had faded after hearing it in the actual film.

Strange thing: after accepting my memory as wrong, the memory actually faded away. Now I can only remember remembering. It was "Berenstein Bears" that really grabbed me and made me believe that something supernatural was at work, because I had so many vivid memories of that spelling, as well as various memories of discussing the spelling/pronunciation and of kids and parents mispronouncing it because of the spelling, as well as looking over the books for sentimental reasons here and there. It was then that I learned about the Mandela Effect and first believed that something was up.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Jesus, this has been explained. James uses luke when out of context of the film. That's the proper place to use luke, which is why some merchandise had it written that way.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: TombEscaper

Like this?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Raxoxane

Is it possible you remember the fact that when she was older, she ....



After Rose returned from her travels, she lived at Rocky Ridge. She built a stone cottage for her parents and moved into the old farmhouse where she continued to write. In the early 1930s she began to work with her mother on the Little House books.

Source
Isn't it plausible that your old memory could have merged the stone cottage she built for her parents with her name? Thereby, in your memory becoming Rose Wilder Lane in a Stone cottage. Over time, the fading of other memories around the books and story blend together again and it becomes Rose Wilder Stone. You remember her name Rose Wilder, you envision the stone cottage, and it finally results in the false combined memory of Rose Wilder Stone as her name.

This is how memory works...especially as time passes. Memory is fluid, it does that, this has been proven scientifically in studies over and over again. What hasn't been proven even once it the creation of a localized warping of the space-time continuum where someone is transported between parallel universes.





Have you considered the fact that not everyone has memories specific enough to give any type of valid response to this? I've probably seen a total of about 5 episodes of Little House on the Prairie in my entire life, when I was around 6. If that's even the show this is talking about. I have no business or reason to wade into that discussion because I don't have a clue what it's even about.


So, the fact that it shows that it is highly probable that old memories can be confused, and possibly how, is not relevant to the discussion on people remembering things differently and wondering if it is a warp in the space-time continuum as opposed to faulty memory. That type of analysis, to you, is not relevant or apropos to other situations.

I see..... I guess those blinders of yours are more narrow than I thought.


I don't even understand the content of the discussion, so I'm not fit to comment on it one way or another. And just because old memories CAN be confused doesn't mean they all ARE. This is just more fact-twisting, extremist hyperbole put forth by those who are too entombed in a left brain mindset to ponder higher octaves of possibility.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TombEscaper

Surely you see your error in logic and reasoning...

Every single issue is people claiming their memory is 100% right, otherwise this wouldn't be a discussion. If people, as I myself have, would accept their memory is faulty they would correct it and move on.


Well then, if you are that worried about the fallibility of your memory, you may have some reason to fear even walking out of your own front door - what if you've forgotten that you live on the edge of a cliff??

Do you care to dare to answer the three (thus far avoided) questions I asked to the other dung-stirrer a page or two back?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Krakatoa

He's too busy using thesaurus.com to read the scientific peer reviewed articles on false memory and shared false memory.


You prove quite adequately that the trolling accusations against you are oh so "unfounded."



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Wow, now that was quite the projectile vomit of thesaurus words. So, if you understand the idea of mathematical probability, which explanation is more probable, and therefore more likely to be the cause?

Faulty old memories or a localized warp in the space-time continuum that only affects you and you alone?

I'll wait while you crunch the numbers.

edit on 5/25/2016 by Krakatoa because: Mandela Effect



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

The Arctic is the most significant Mandela Effect because it possibly saved the world (human civilization.) I have encountered numerous people in YouTube comments (and some who make videos) who remember it as we do: a continent but not believed to have a land mass. I think that most don't like openly discussing it because it sounds pretty far out. As a Canadian, I saw so many news reports of the Arctic, and it was ALWAYS featured on the map above Canada, as a white mass (not all of it, but a lower region of it.) One day I was looking at maps of Canada for related issues and noticed that the Arctic was cut off all Canadian maps now.

I can't confirm or deny Eurasia. It sounds vaguely familiar, but too vague to confirm.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Please watch what you say, FlyIn. I really value your contributions and would hate to see you get banned. I have seen so many ATS members get banned over the years. Your reasons probably won't matter to the mods, just breaking the rules will.

To answer you on the matter philosophically, I agree with you in that we should be able to express how we feel (ideally.) At the same time though, I can appreciate that strict rules keeps things simpler for mods. The downside is that trolls can dance around such rigid (specific) rules, as jerks do in real life with the law. In either case, we have to rise above it and do our best to stay strong. It's far easier to be a troll, and I guess that's why they do it.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Probably because a large mass of ice, also called an ice sheet, cannot be called a continent? Perhaps those old maps were wrong, and they got corrected to more accurately list real land based continents?

Again, which is more probable?

Maps were incorrectly classifying the arctic ice sheet as a continent and have recently been corrected to be more accurate, or that localized warp in the space-time continuum caused it?

Definition of Continent from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary

one of the great divisions of land (such as North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or Antarctica) of the Earth



edit on 5/25/2016 by Krakatoa because: Mandela Effect



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Wow, that's amazing, FlyIn! I'll have to read more on that sometime. While reading it early on it reminded me of David Icke's Reptilians



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: TombEscaper

Wow, now that was quite the projectile vomit of thesaurus words. So, if you understand the idea of mathematical probability, which explanation is more probable, and therefore more likely to be the cause?

Faulty old memories or a localized warp in the space-time continuum that only affects you and you alone?

I'll wait while you crunch the numbers.


Each case (or ME) would have to be specific unto itself, based upon certain variables and other criteria for each instance. It's all moot anyway, because a few pages back I posted several points about the intricacies of memory that thoroughly dismantle the propositions of the objectors in their unrelenting insistence that all ME's are simply cases of failed memory.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Then, in your alternative, these localize warps in the space-time continuum (you know, the things nobody has yet proven even exist) are happening all the time, every day, everywhere, to a special breed of folks. Or, people are recalling false memories. Or, is there another potential cause? Heck, I would even accept as a more probable cause, mass hypnosis on a global scale as more likely than that unproven warping of space-time. At least hypnosis is a proven thing.


edit on 5/25/2016 by Krakatoa because: Mandela Effect



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

To be blunt? Your questions were stupid...

You fail to recognize the difference between recent daily repetition, muscle memory if you will, and recalled memory. You've resorted to yet another logical fallacy.

Once those daily or recent events have a good amount of time between them and the present they will lose the muscle memory and will be less accurate.

Considering similar questions were answered in linked papers and a Ted talk, it's obvious you've either not reviewed those papers or refuse to accept the science behind memory as an option.
edit on 25-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join