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

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: TombEscaper

Have you tried searching with other search engines, other then Google. Try using Tor to search deeper in the internet, use the time machine website to go back to older websites that the name shows on, to see if there is a switch between one website reading the proper name to the new name. If you need any assistance on any of that, message me.

Changing names of a product is not unfamiliar however, neither is changing a name. Someone sometimes does not like how there name reads or changes it for another and then wishes to make their lives reflect it. A product name may not look as good as it once did in retro font as it does not in modern fonts.

Hi, thanks for the input. I've tended to pretty much stick to the main search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) and generally get similar results/spelling "corrections." I have yet to use the different mechanisms you talk about, but I like the idea to possibly find "residue" that may be more deeply hidden.

The problem with your basic "product name change" postulation is that there is no real evidence of a specific "change" at a specific "time." The way things are now appear as though it's the way they've always been, aside from within people's memories and knowingness.

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: TombEscaper

Found the video and captured a clearer pic:

www.youtube.com...

Interesting find

Much better! I believe someone with a "Haylie" spelling also commented about her name. (I don't have access at the moment.) This again would be senseless to even comment there, as both the spelling and pronunciation are not close to "Halley's."

Perhaps what you show above reveals that something changed in between 11 months and one year ago. Although this is still hard to reconcile with the article from 30 years ago about Haley's Comet never actually existing. This is all a lot more complex than "when" something "changed."

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Yes. Those are two of the best arguments for ME that I have seen so far. If looking at it from a relaxed, clear perspective, it's blatantly obvious that something has changed.

originally posted by: alienDNA
* yes I reckon a degree in psychology makes you a psychologist even if that is not ones profession. (since it requires some 8-12 years in higher education - definitely netting in a different response than he made)

I used the word psychologist to make a point, if I had to mention each specialization (such as counsellors, therapists, etc) it would have made for a loooong reply. LOL

a reply to: Masterjaden

I keep hearing about the ending change in Who Famed Roger Rabbit? It is one of the ME's that I personally have not had. I remember feeling strongly that something was wrong with the ending when I first saw it on video, yet I could not (for some reason) remember why it felt wrong.

Do you remember what the original ending was, or does anyone else here remember it? Curious to know

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

A lot of recyclable garbage crowding the room

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

i remember the ending being lloyds character melting, and he yelling, "im melting!".
do not remember anything else from that movie, as ive not seen it in 25 years

a reply to: TombEscaper

We tend to write things off. It's a lot like "seeing things" or "hearing things." You might see a clear Shadow Man figure one day and be shaken by the experience, and it may not be until some time later, when you think on it, that you had noticed them different times in the past but had ignored it. It's a bit similar to my experience learning that the SW line was "No, I am your father." I was sure that I knew what it was but it seemed obvious that I had to be wrong, so I accepted the new reality of it.

I am not that knowledgeable of the Bible, but there are things that I clearly remember beyond any doubt which have changed. "And the lion laid down with the lamb" is universal.

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: Masterjaden

I keep hearing about the ending change in Who Famed Roger Rabbit? It is one of the ME's that I personally have not had. I remember feeling strongly that something was wrong with the ending when I first saw it on video, yet I could not (for some reason) remember why it felt wrong.

Do you remember what the original ending was, or does anyone else here remember it? Curious to know

I still have some catching up to do but I want to reply to this post now, because this can be an honest and unbiased "memory analysis" before everyone's eyes. Maybe this will help our studies.

I remember seeing that movie in the theater as a kid, probably 1988. I don't recall watching it or reading about it again since then. I don't remember much of anything specific from it, but I remember there being some kind of chemical that could supposedly only affect cartoon characters. There was a scene where the main bad guy with round glasses (Dr. Doom or something similar?) backed away from it when some of it had spilled on the ground. Then, the ending I remember had something to do with him being destroyed by it, because he was actually a cartoon in disguise all along.

That's the best of my recollection there.

a reply to: TombEscaper

Yes, I see that comment as well. But it she could have been using an alias on YT, or one of them may be her middle name.

a reply to: TombEscaper

That's what I remember too and I see that it is still the ending when I look it up on YouTube, but apparently some people remember it ending differently. I am not sure if it was the Judge Doom death scene or the part where all the animals gather together afterwards.

a reply to: raymundoko

Please try quoting the whole thing...you are getting pathetic in your attempts to discredit me now...lol

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Or else you do what? Pathetic. You are obviously quite far from being a psychologist. And even if you were, the only thing your diploma would prove, is that whoever issued it should have their license removed.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

It's getting difficult to stay motivated, and to keep discussing the issue rather than the muddying of the waters. Good information is getting flooded. Forum sliding. Really, really disappointing.

Please help keep the discussion alive, I really don't want to see this conversation die - it's looking bleak.

Actually Ive been trying to keep the discussion alive by posting theories, at least as valid (if not more) than the theories youve presented, although im being ignored by your silly biases towards me, and its really childish at this point, but thats fine.

you want to promote discussion but choose to ignore certain posts. How is that helpful?
Oh well. I guess Ill be discussing my theories, youll be discussing yours - and we will act as children, dodging one another.
Great choice.

originally posted by: Agartha

I was very interested in this topic but everything has been easily debunked, I can't see anything unexplainable.

Hmm, I may quote here something which I wrote on a related thread:

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2

...this is still new to many of us and we are still trying to come to terms with it, wrap our minds around what has happened. If a group of scientists head out on an expedition to try to locate evidence of Atlantis, the science community would not automatically jump on them and call them liars, fools or lunatics. Why on earth would they? The team needs time to locate potential evidence, collect it, examine it and build a case for it. This takes time, perhaps years. Likewise, it would probably take years to build a serious case for the Mandela Effect in terms of compelling evidence to convince skeptics.

Which brings me to my final point: we are not scientists. If at some point a scientist or group of scientists wants to examine the Mandela Effect they may determine if there is evidence to build a case to convince their peers, they may try. Most of us go on logic and common sense.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I am watching the PBS NOVA- MEMORY HACKERS documentary at present

The thread has been intentionally rundown and nothing has or will be done about this. In the past, on different forum sites, I have helped to keep a dying thread going but I have learned that this cannot be done by intention. Either someone comes in with energy and things get rebooted or eventually someone starts a new Mandela Effect thread and a new conversation starts for it. The only way to keep this thread going is to take a break from it and see when or if you feel interested in coming back. That way you are returning with genuine interest and it will show (be felt) through what you contribute. Basically, we cannot force interesting. But I believe the topic is interesting and it will not die.

double post

originally posted by: Habit4ming
Just a thought: I haven't done further research on the changing Bible verses, but I am still certain the words stuff/stuffe, penny, bank were never in there. Anyway, there are 26 different versions of the Bible. Are they all changing, or are only certain ones different now?

This is why I think this Biblical element of the Mandela Effect has the potential to get really messy. We are dealing with translated documents as it is, with ambiguities about different portions of the text that may or may not have been in the "original manuscripts," etc. (The ending of Mark's Gospel is a prime example.) And on top of that is the fact that we have countless modern translations with different passages that have been ingrained into people's minds from all of those various translations.

I have never been a fan of the King James, using primarily the New International Version for most readings. I have, however, referenced the KJV versions of many passages for various purposes.

Despite the KJV not being my primary reference, I do believe some of the ME's coming out regarding the King James are legitimate. "Jeremy" being mentioned instead of Jeremiah in only one verse is one of those.

Also, the fact that the Old Testament of the KJ has "piss" all over it (literally) is rather bizarre. I have sought out and studied many Biblical criticisms and articles about weird and profane things in the Bible, and have never seen this highlighted. I find it unfathomable that this would have never come up in works of folks who make it one of their professional priorities to find and present offensive Biblical contents. This is on top of the fact that I have read through sizeable portions of the OT in the KJV in times past. I had always remembered "bastard" being the most taboo "bad word" known of in the Bible. And yet, now we have 8 instances of "piss" in the Old Testament. Here are two:

So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. (1 Samuel 25:22)


Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (2 Kings 18:27)