It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 153
<< 150  151  152    154  155  156 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:08 AM

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: galaga

Would you ponder over the book or the spelling of the name? Honestly, why would you ponder over the name as a small child?

Me dude. I have always been like that. Started reading the newspaper and Time magazine when I was 4. With my dad. Advanced reading in school from the start.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:46 AM
a reply to: Profusion

Any subjective story regarding someones own personal memory is not evidence...
That is why, in this thread, in this subject, I cannot recognize personal experience as evidence.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: Habit4ming

Relax buddy. I have read the thread, I mustve missed your comment. CHILL.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
a reply to: Profusion

I like that guy's video. I know what he's saying. I've contemplated that kind of thing for many years as I've observed this world.

Musical timelines, similar to musical chairs.
ETA: Maybe I should say musical realities instead.
edit on 1-6-2016 by tweetie because: added a sentence.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: galaga

Same. I could fully read and write by 4. Even then I had the spelling wrong until I was 10. When did you stop reading the Berenstain Bears? Most people stopped about 8 or 9. If I hadn't re-read it with my brother I would have always thought it was Stein. Your ability to read and write, even advanced, at a young age doesn't mean your memory is correct. It especially doesn't mean your brain wasn't auto correcting words for you. Young children are smarter than adults from a learning perspective, so your brain could have been easily filling in the blanks for you to keep your learning curve up.
edit on 1-6-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:32 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

You don't even see that you are mocking your own stance with that post...some logic.

Of course I see the irony. I was being ironic.

You see the fallacy right? RIGHT???

No, I don't. NO I DON'T. The issue is pure logic, not probablities & likelihoods.
NB - using all caps to make yourself appear to have a slam dunk, is fallacious.

So far each of your post contains direct ad hominem attacks.

LOL. And yours don't? Please.. We understand how you tread carefully and provoke people into a reaction.

Another post showcasing ignorance of science and circular logic. Where is this logic you've been using? Is this flawed logic really what you consider logical??? I mean, I can't make this stuff up. I don't even have to break it down. All someone has to do is read it out loud to realize how it sounds...

Again, you're not actually having a discussion about what I wrote, you're just claiming it's dumb. Which is no way to win a debate. Explain why the logic is flawed. Bear in mind that I have repeatedly stated that we're dealing with permissible logic, and not probabilities/likelihoods.

I think I am actually getting dumber reading them. Why?

The fact that you haven't addressed anything of the substance of what I wrote - you just keep shouting that it's all dumb - well, that kind of proves you didn't need to get any dumber in the first place.

You also used the term true skeptic several times. Are others fake skeptics? Explain yourself.

True skeptics are those with enquiring minds, intellectual honesty & a general attitude of agnosticism towards the unknown. Those who simply harangue & shout, claiming intellectual superiority & yet refusing to debate properly, well, they're pseudo-skeptics. People who like to jump on the bandwagon of being 'logical', who derive pleasure from trashing conversations which they deem beneath them, who love the cameraderie derived from trolling a thread as part of a team. They are the ones who dismiss the input of others, claiming it's all hogwash, without actually meeting on level terms and having a proper discussion. Kind of like what you just did. I mean, you didn't actually mention a single thing - not one thing - to properly counter what I wrote, you just shouted that it was all dumb, illogical, unscientific, circular, etc.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: DJW001

The "Mandela Effect" requires countless unprovable assumptions, many of which are self contradictory or demonstrably false.

1) Human beings are incapable of perceptual error.

2) Human memory is infallible.

Number 1 & 2 are BS, because none of us claim to be infallible, you know this, yet you continue to lie.

3) Everything we think we know about the nature of physical reality is wrong.

Many scientists and philosophers have contemplated the effects of time travel, other realities & so forth, and the factors involved are not considered scientific impossibilities, even when accounting for our present understanding of the universe. Number 3 is made up BS, yet again.

4) There is no such thing as object permanence.

Of course there is. I don't know where you got that one from, as far as I know, nobody here has claimed that there isn't. Again, you're just making stuff up, using well-known scientific concepts to sound authoritative.

5) There is no such thing as entropy.

Entropy requires a linear time process. What we're discussing may go beyond & around time, into dimensions where time is meaningless, so entropy is utterly irrelevant. Another appeal to sounding authoritative.

6) Multiple universes exist.

Read my posts a little more carefully - I have specifically stated that only one universe is required. You're making stuff up - again.

7) Dimensions exist outside of time.

Perfectly feasible. Why is it infeasible? The concept is vigorously debated perhaps, but it's not been disproven - many scientists are quite happy to consider multiple dimensions where time would not exist in the way that we perceive it. Show me a link to your evidence which rules against this position. If you're so certain that I'm wrong, there must be some hard-hitting studies to back you up.

8) Time and space can be manipulated.

We already know that they can, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Speed of light, time stops. Until that point, it slows down. Place a massive object next to a star, and observe the effects upon spacetime. Another false appeal to trusting your godlike genius.

9) Disjunct universes can communicate with one another....

Explain why this is impossible. Please, really, I'm curious. Why are you so sure that this would be impossible? Why is any of it impossible? Because Humanity at present doesn't have the capability? That's no reason to discount speculative possibilities. At every stage along the way, I have stated unequivocally that I am speculating, and that in order for the effects I postulate to be apparent, immensely advanced technological feats would be required. Why are you telling future generations that logic forbids them to develop amazing feats of technological prowess?

I could go on and on and on. Simple logic dictates that ME theorists have too many non-falsifiable assumptions to take seriously.

Happy now?

I see your falsehood & raise you a large jug of truth. We're not hashing together the next new physics thesis here, we're speculating about an effect which would likely necessitate technologies well in advance of our own. By millions of years perhaps. That doesn't make these things impossible. Already, only just over a hundred years after the internal combustion engine, we're developing means to control non-locality, or 'spooky action at a distance'. We're teleporting electrons. We're discussing the physics of black holes, we're contemplating a holographic theory of the universe - the list goes on & on. What we'll be able to do in a thousand years would clearly blow your eyelashes off. You're not ready for the possibilities, and therefore your mind is closed off to what might be going on right under your nose.

edit on JuneWednesday1616CDT12America/Chicago-050053 by FlyInTheOintment because: tags

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:56 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Do you know what the law of entropy is beyond a quick google search? Heck, even the basic summary should be enough for you to know how the ME violates it...

You're refusing to adopt the necessary assumptions. Which is okay, incidentally, as we're speculating here. Entropy would not be violated because linear time constraints would not apply.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:21 PM
You do claim to be infallible. Do you think there's a chance you are wrong about X ME? If you think chances are zero, you are claiming infallibility. You aren't directly saying it sure, but it's clear that's what it is.

That has been explained to you several times and you fail to grasp it because your poor logic has a chokehold on your reason.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:22 PM
So link to the science that supports what you just said...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So by your definition I am a true skeptic. You just hate that I'm educated enough to combat the idiocy that is the ME so you want to label me something I'm not to support your cause.

Through these threads I've posted more scientific peer reviewed papers, as well as scholarly talks in video form, than any other person.

What science have you or anyone from the ME crowd brought forward? Zip. Zero. Nada. I'm not required to continue to break down your poor logic because I've done it over and over again. You beating a dead horse won't bring it back to life and any laziness involved on an ME'ers part to not view the scientific material provided is not my problem.

The vast majority have an elementary school level knowledge of science which is why we see ridiculous statements about CERN and quantum physics in general.

It's comical how circular the argument for ME is, and even more comical that you keep repeating the same unfounded theories.

Like I said, I was intrigued by this years ago when it first popped up, but I quickly saw it for what it was.
edit on 1-6-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: tigertatzen

I would love to know why you are purposedly ignoring my CPR post to you. If you didn't want to go off topic again you could have send me a private message, like I asked. If you don't have any evidence I would find it really strange as you said you are a BSL instructor, but that would be fine too. If you were mistaken then that would be ok too, we are all adults here, not kids who ignore each other without reason. Our last chat in here was ok, so I have no idea why you would suddenly ignore me. This was about CPR, not ME.

Oh well, we can only come to our own conclusions on why you decided not to reply about our CPR techniques.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

That is a fascinating perspective, thanks so much for sharing, FlyIn!

It reminds me of: "All roads lead to the mountain."

If you are correct, this could be actual evidence of fate (if you were proven correct, I mean.) If changes in reality do not alter the paths we are on in life, and the greater path that humanity is on, this could mean that all paths are destined. This would work similar to a race track, where cars can only go one way, no matter which way they adjust their position or are forced out of position. For all their mindfulness and decision making, they all end up where they were meant to (unless someone crashes.) In this sense I guess, a "crash" would be death. We all crash eventually, since we loop around endlessly in this crazy thing called life, making decisions to change our realities, but do we really change anything? What if you end up as you do in life because you were meant to, and circumstance happened to allow it to be that way? Many people try to be rich or famous but fail, while others just try to do what they love well and happen to make it big.

I myself have experienced déjà vu and visions of the future while in a dream state. Perhaps the future has already happened because you can't have a beginning and a middle without an end. Perhaps the moment a beginning is laid down, so is an end. You can't place 1 and 1 without having 2 (1+1=2.) It is automatic. Perhaps life is a far, far more complex demonstration of that principal.

If everything that has happened and will happen are already set, because 1+1=2, then messing around with it could not change anything. If someone grabs your paper and turns a 1 into a 7, does that change the result? Perhaps it just changes reality so that 1+7 now equals 2 and always did.

Wow, heavy stuff!

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:04 PM
a reply to: tigertatzen

Well said and I think many of us feel this way. It is especially annoying that the answer is a mystery. I've always been the kind of person who likes life as something mysterious, but in this case it feels wrong that I can not make sense of it. Something changed certain details of the reality we live in, and that is huge, and yet we know nothing of how or why.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:11 PM

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: tigertatzen

Seriously though, can you imagine the closed-doors meetings that must have happened concerning the Mandela Efect? Whether they had anything at all to do with facilitating the effect, surely they must have been fascinated as the 'movement' grew in awareness & numbers. Wow, I would love to have been a FlyOnTheWall at one of those sessions.

I have thought about this a little and it is interesting. A lot of them no doubt know people who have been personally affected by it. I'm sure they'd pick up some poor souls somewhere to mess with through hypnosis, 'deep digression therapy' to see what they really remember. I doubt they could easily learn anything more about it than us though, unless of course they knew something prior to this that we do not.

To say that this would be a concern to National Security would be an understatement!

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:16 PM
a reply to: Agartha

Jeez, I'm surprised to hear this from you, Agartha. Remember that a number of people trolling this forum have complicated things. From the beginning everyone here has seemed open to honest criticism. My way of handling them at this point is to flat out ignore them. There is nothing wrong with disbelieving us, debating us, but please do not group us together as some kind of cult. That is the claim that those trolls were trying to make of us a while back to try to discredit us, rather than to debate us with intellectual honesty. I have respected your opinions in this discussion so far.

I hope that we can all discuss things in an honest and respectful fashion, to believers and nonbelievers alike. Let's not lose our way because of a few troublemakers.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:38 PM
a reply to: dreampsi

Welcome to the discussion, and please don't let the trolls bother you

I remembered that Betty White had died a long time ago. Maybe it was in the 90's, not sure. I never paid much attention to celebrities and Hollywood but I remember that being reported and people talking about it. One day I heard how she was in this new comedy show and she is a big celebrity again. I kept a smile and talked a bit about it with this person, who was a Betty White fan, while I bit my lip on my confusion...she was dead! I looked it up and sure enough, she was alive again and had never died! That happened years and I never thought much about it until recently.

It is weird how language changes in the culture/media. For example, I never before in my life heard "said __." For example: "I solved said problem by working it through." I first noticed this a number of months ago while listening to a YouTube video. I've read a lot over the years and have frequently spoken with very well educated people, wordy people, yet somehow I'd never heard the word "said issue, etc." before. Since then it has popped up everywhere, including in shows I've watched in the past many times without hearing it. Recently I was watching old episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and in one episode this expression was used, and again in another. I'd watched every episode, closely, twice before, without noticing this. It is a noticeable usage of language that certainly would grab your attention when you hear it. It is of course within the realm of possibility that I somehow managed to not hear it, but I find it odd how said term is popping up everywhere, and in so many places where I should have noticed said term before, including said TV show.

By itself it might not mean anything, but with all these other changes to our language happening, I have to wonder.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:52 PM

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: Agartha

Jeez, I'm surprised to hear this from you, Agartha. Remember that a number of people trolling this forum have complicated things. From the beginning everyone here has seemed open to honest criticism. My way of handling them at this point is to flat out ignore them. There is nothing wrong with disbelieving us, debating us, but please do not group us together as some kind of cult. That is the claim that those trolls were trying to make of us a while back to try to discredit us, rather than to debate us with intellectual honesty. I have respected your opinions in this discussion so far.

I hope that we can all discuss things in an honest and respectful fashion, to believers and nonbelievers alike. Let's not lose our way because of a few troublemakers.

Agartha had a perfectly reasonable discussion with Tiger. Tiger claimed that as an instructor of a particular method she knew her stuff and that she would provide evidence of the techniques she knew to prove that the anatomy had changed

Big nope though, Tiger has subsequently sidestepped Agartha's perfectly reasonable request to provide the information that Tiger said she would. Agartha has been totally respectful, but I think that as Tiger did promise to provide the information, she should either do so, or if she hasn't got/can't get the information she should say so. I'm sure that Agartha would be fine with that, but it was Tiger who claimed she had this information and would bring it to the discussion and she hasn't, so there is nothing wrong with Agartha asking her. why are you so defensive.

BTW those of us who question the validity of ME are NOT trolls, we have as much right to ask questions and put forward our perspectives as you and the other ME believers, but by continuing to denigrate those who don't agree with you, you are beginning to look like a cult, because that's exactly the behaviour they exhibit..turn on anyone who questions and attempt to tarnish their character rather than just answer a simple question.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:58 PM
a reply to: Leiura

Thanks for sharing your experiences with us
You're certainly not alone, as many of us are having these sorts of experiences and are trying to make sense of it.

(Don't mind the trolls.)

No more JCPenny? That's a new one for me.

I myself have had digestive problems for a number of months now, tinnitus, reoccurring insomnia, dizziness, etc. In my case I have been recovering from a very stressful work situation and I would assume that was the cause.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:00 PM
a reply to: destination now

What do you mean "beginning to look like a cult"?

Do a Google search and you can see how "cult like" it has really become.

Say anything bad? Get called a troll, shill, disinformation agent and countless other ad Homs. Also the books, lectures, donations to "the cause" and other merchandise.

It's almost as bad as Scientology.

new topics

top topics

<< 150  151  152    154  155  156 >>

log in