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: 155
136
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: TerryDon79

Not to sound annoyed or anything but i've had a long day and i responded to another poster. I sensed a poster purposely yanking my chain. So guess what i've also the right so say bugger off, And not participate/respond to someone i feel yanking my chain when i've not even responded to them personally but another poster.

Is that ok with you big brother?


See my above post. (And chill)





posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh i'd love to chill, you've no idea



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tetra50

If you think anecdotal evidence, no matter how common, is even close to empirical evidence shows you lack understanding of what empirical evidence is.

Empirical Evidence requires that something can be observed and duplicated, and that it was something tangible that could be observed with our main senses.

Just because thousands of people made the same common mistake doesn't make that mistake correct. That is a logical fallacy and the primary one the ME crowd continues to use.


Which fallacy does that represent, exactly? Ad Hominem, false dilemma, false dichotomy, black/white?

Here's my point: (And btw, I completely understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical. If you've read any of my posts in this thread, I was the first person to even use the word "anecdotal." )
Anyhow, the point is it defies logic, certainly, that so many people would have a common hallucination, memory issue, about the very same events. The empiric evidence of that is right in front of you, and so constitutes empirical. Anecdotal would mean only a few, or one, experienced this.

Further, empirical, literally, means simply, that which is seen, observed, even as you, yourself pointed out. Frankly, I would refer you back to my earliest posts in this thread, in which I've quoted from reliable sources an explanation of what time dilation is, and what constitutes that strangeness of physics. You will note reading about time dilation that it's all about OBSERVANCE and the OBSERVER. If empirical evidence is about what is seen, then empirical evidence is totally dependent upon the OBSERVER, who SEES it.......

tetra
edit on 1-6-2016 by tetra50 because: fallacious



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.


There are those of us who have provided scientific foundation just as you have. I find your replies insulting. The perception of everything is about the perceiving of it and the perceiver. It's that simple. Therein lies the questioning about the "standard model" of physics. It's being questioned even now, and increasingly so.

Surely you are aware of the term: cognitive dissonance?
How you think of things, what you are taught to think of them, and how things really are.
Our "theories" about theoretical physics are still just theories, my friend. Everything, at this point, is truly really theoretical, and dependent upon both our observation and translation of what we observed. If we don't lose our egos enough to realize, admit, and factor that in, very poor logical scientists, we are, indeed....
tetra



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
dp, sry
edit on 1-6-2016 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: galaga

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.


Me too. Taught myself to read at age four. By second grade I was reading at a college level...I read the entire 2nd grade primer the first day of class; I was bored and ate it up in the first two hours of a six hour school day. Currently, years later, I read 1188 words per minute. I used to read far faster than that.

I can understand someone being that interested in such matters as a young child, because I was like that myself. I read The Diary of Anne Frank when I was eight, and it was a profound experience for me. You just don't forget things like that. They make you think.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 30359America/ChicagoWed, 01 Jun 2016 21:35:17 -050030pm30152America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
What sense would McDonalds make? Honestly! It's Ronald McDonald's house, hence, McDonald's. You couldn't put two and two together on that one?

Also, the name Big Mac has nothing to do with the name McDonald's. It's named after the big big trucks. It's a Big Mac of burgers...

a reply to: Profusion



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Again, you misunderstand.

In science for it to be empirical evidence it has to be observed via experimentation and be recorded for review.

You can't record the ME. The evidence available shows the memory is faulty. A scientific study would show this effect to be psychological in nature.

a reply to: tetra50



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Some really funny sh#t would be if all of this was simply due to failed memories and bad assumptions, which is likely.


HAHAHAHA!



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Just so you know it's actually impossible to teach yourself to read with no reference. Hence why we have dead languages we can't translate. Your parents or a tutor would have had to assist you.

Also, the diary of Anne frank is NOT the Berenstain Bears. One is a girls struggle in a war torn land hiding with her family in hopes they will survive. The other is a cartoon book where a bear learns to ride a tricycle.

Plain and simple, any memory you have from childhood is probably inaccurate in some way. That's where the saying "the truth lies between us" comes from pertaining to multiple people telling the same story.

a reply to: tigertatzen



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: destination now

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.


Tiger never said anything about thinking that human anatomy changed. In fact, Tiger said quite the opposite. What Tiger actually said was that Tiger had not noticed any anatomical changes, and thought the confusion was due to poor anatomical renderings on the internet, and cited a clear example of why that could be the case. Tiger stated that she had looked at a number of different anatomical charts before posting, specifically looking for changes, yet Tiger found none.

If this discussion is still going on in August, when Tiger gets her course material, then Tiger will be happy to provide it...even though Tiger never "promised" anything. Tiger does not typically make promises to strangers on the internet because she takes promises very seriously. Of course, if you knew Tiger at all you'd know that about her already, and would not need to resort to assumptions about her character like that.

Until then, the information is plentiful on the net, and Tiger is pretty sure that if Agartha can find the time to post a rude, condescending demand for that information, Agartha can also find the time to Google it.

Tiger's entire point in the anatomy discussion was that the location of the heart is, and always has been, slightly to the left of the mediastinum, not directly in the center chest. Tiger also provided proof, again available to anyone who is able to post here, that this is correct and that the people who were telling hidingthistime that the heart is instead located dead center in the chest evidently need to brush up on the knowledge of their own bodies, because it most certainly is not.

Tiger is of the professional medical opinion that anyone employed as a nurse in any country, entrusted with people's lives, should at least have a passing understanding of basic human anatomy, such as where the heart is located in the chest cavity. But do you see Tiger demanding proof of anyone's licensure? No, you don't. Because it is irrelevant in a discussion on the internet among people who are essentially complete strangers. Further, Tiger was under the impression that this thread is posted in a forum in which discussions do not require proof of anything. These things, coupled with the disproportionately negative and aggressive nature of the demand, however, make the odds of Tiger interacting with such a rude individual again on this thread pretty slim.

In short, Tiger does not respond well to nastiness, because Tiger's parents raised her better than that...and as Tiger already made clear earlier, she has far more deserving people who need her attention right now.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm really curious to know what you think, Tiger. Could you PM me with what your thoughts are?

The idea that we could be getting screened is possible, and that opens up other possibilities which I now find myself unwilling to mention here as well. Sigh...



Yes, I will be happy to PM you. I've got to shoot a PM to Flyin too. I'm tying to get all of my data together so it'll be less scattered. I've been dealing with my daughter getting scary test results at the doctor, so I've not been keeping up very well with the thread these past few days, sorry about that. I dearly wish for the days of chat rooms, where you could have an interactive conversation in real time with multiple people.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

edit on 30379America/ChicagoWed, 01 Jun 2016 21:37:13 -050030pm30152America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?


No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?


No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.


Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Clyde Lewis is talking about the Mandela Effect tonight. His show just started in my area on AM radio. He said he did a show about it before but I never heard that one.

Edited to Add: His show began an hour ago but not on my station. His shows can be heard on the Internet and from his archives. Ground Zero Media.
edit on 1-6-2016 by tweetie because: Added more info.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Just so you know it's actually impossible to teach yourself to read with no reference. Hence why we have dead languages we can't translate. Your parents or a tutor would have had to assist you.

Also, the diary of Anne frank is NOT the Berenstain Bears. One is a girls struggle in a war torn land hiding with her family in hopes they will survive. The other is a cartoon book where a bear learns to ride a tricycle.

Plain and simple, any memory you have from childhood is probably inaccurate in some way. That's where the saying "the truth lies between us" comes from pertaining to multiple people telling the same story.

a reply to: tigertatzen



It is most certainly not impossible. I taught myself to read at age four. Period. And lots of kids do this. My parents were called in by my teacher after I read my entire primer. They knew I could read already; in fact the very reason I taught myself in the first place was because my mother refused to read to me or show me how to read these books of hers with no pictures. There was no such thing then as "gifted" curriculum. We were in another country, and a very oppressive one.

The only thing the teacher could think to do was start teaching me from her own college textbook. So for my second grade year, I was using her book and she made up exams for me to take, etc. out of that book. English Literature 110. I wrote a 300 word short story as my final exam.

Reading was just easy for me for some reason. Math, I struggled with and was actually placed in a fundamentals class for that, because it made no sense to my brain. It still doesn't. I have never taken algebra or geometry...I simply cannot understand it. At all. It just looks like gibberish. I can add and subtract, multiply and divide, but beyond that I have zero math comprehension.

But reading, writing...those things to me are as easy as breathing in and out. There are millions of kids out there who spontaneously teach themselves things like that, with no help from anyone. My brother taught himself to write code, and he's never finished high school. Now he's an IT specialist. It happens.

www.davidsongifted.org...

And you know...there's no need to point out that Anne Frank and the Berenstein Bears are not the same thing. No one said they were. That's just nasty and rude. I was simply telling another poster that I understand how he/she could have pondered such things at such a young age, because I did that too. Insinuating that I am so stupid that I somehow thought Anne Frank and the Berenstein Bears were the same story serves no purpose other than to bait and inflame. This is precisely why most of us do not wish to reply to you. Your childish behavior is unnecessary and only brings more discord into the discussion. This will likely be my last reply to you as well.

Perhaps you should visit a dictionary and brush up on the definition of "impossible". Just a suggestion.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?


No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.


Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?


Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.




top topics



 
136
<< 152  153  154    156  157  158 >>

log in

join