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: 77
136
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TombEscaper

Thanks for the "applause." Very kind of you.

You seem to be convinced that I am "something other" than an ATS member participating in your thread.

I don't "know that you know" anything. To be honest, I think you're very confused at the moment, and you're projecting some of that confusion on me. My method is to communicate as directly and as honestly as I can.

I would note though that the Mods have asked us to stop the personal comments. I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the subject instead of me. Thanks.





posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one. Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.

As would I. How do you supposed we might find something like that if we always dismiss incongruities in our perceived reality as a flaw within ourselves?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Gryphon66



The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one. Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.

As would I. How do you supposed we might find something like that if we always dismiss incongruities in our perceived reality as a flaw within ourselves?



I don't "always dismiss" anything. I look at each instance individually and as carefully as I can. Why? I'm subject to confirmation bias as well.

How do you detect a "change" in the universe? Dig down one level ...

Why do we think that a "change" in the universe has happened?

What would that be?

Would it be something that only affected a few people? Or affected a lot of people differently ... individually?

Physical evidence could be something as simple as an old pack of Depends that has the logo "Depends" on it, rather than Depend.

ANYTHING that would shift the evidence from the subjective to the objective level that CANNOT be explained as a mistake (or in this case, a forgery or a novelty item, perhaps.)

I hope that's more clear.

edit on 6-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AboveBoard

How did I prejudge you when I asked you a series of questions based on my understanding?





So I'm paraphrasing in order to consolidate and appreciate what you've said .... scientific understanding is useless because there are different theoretical bases for describing the finer points of something like, say, time, gravity and other fundamental forces, and since we know that our perceptions of reality are flawed and incomplete we couldn't trust any method or paradigm to parse and interpret it anyway ... what do we do?

I mean, billions use the concepts of time, gravity, inertia, space, mass, matter, energy, etc. daily in their lives productively. But because there are differing theoretical frameworks at some level of description for those quantities or qualities ... well, it's just really all too vague to say anything certain about anything?

Where are we left in your scenario?

We all just believe whatever we want because are no standards to compare anything to? No truth, no fact?

Is that really how you experience your existence?



Gee. I don't know how I could have possibly taken such language as being in any way derisive of my point of view... Seriously? *sigh* Perhaps I heard more sarcasm in your words than you intended? Perhaps I thought you were mischaracterizing me in a negative way, given that I AM a reasonable, logical, science-appreciating person?



I stated that I was paraphrasing you, expressing my understanding of what you had said. If you don't like my writing style, I'm sorry: I write the way I write, just as you do. I wouldn't ask you to avoid the rather refulgent way you write because of my reaction to it ...


"Refulgent" is a compliment. So thank you. I appreciate having my writing characterized as "filled with light."





You know the funny thing, despite the "communication irritation" between us ... I think you and I are probably saying the same thing to about a 97% factor.

The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one.
Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.

That's just "who I am. I'm not telling anyone else they can't "be who they are" and believe in time travel, or dimensional jumps of God's will ... but I'm also not going to try to "talk through their hat" ... I just try to say what I mean as clearly as I can.


I think we agree to a large degree as well. I too, would love to see physical evidence. That would be awesome. I think most people here would like to see that too! It would help them figure out what's going on and thus "ground the weird" back into a framework of understandable reality.

Really, however, when determining the nature of an anomaly that might very well NOT have physical proof other than the memories of our fellow family-members and internet groups regarding memory, it gets kind of dicey.

I don't feel the need to make anyone "right" or "wrong" in this discussion, in regards to what theory they are playing with. Perhaps that is more the spirit that I take it in - not that it isn't serious, but that ideas need to be able to be expressed, kicked around and brainstormed in a way that invites creativity and new-thinking to the problem.

There are many documented "scientific discoveries" that resulted from "out of the box thinking," or from "flashes of insight" or even dreams, so much so that I think an important aspect of science is paying attention to anomalies like this and exploring them creatively. Perhaps that is where we differ? It isn't, for me, about establishing a "belief system" but having the freedom to go "where no man has gone before" when faced with a compelling anomaly. It's the Hero's Journey, the Quest - it's exciting! If you were to stretch your own thinking into an uncomfortable place, I wonder what you might find?

- AB

ps (please pardon any undue refulgence...or you can wear sunglasses?
LOL!)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

The thing that bugs me is that the whole concept was they were simpatico due to both being 'metal mouths'... and her smiling so huge, in so many shots, was to show the braces...

that is an indelible, neurally networked memory for me, like dilemNa... and Louie Anderson being dead, due to circumstances and other memory about discussions over the instances, which make those so remarkable, to me, and so remains a destabilizing WTF instance ... to me (and others, thankfully).

The whole thing makes no sense w/out the braces!



She had "metal mouth" too. I also watched that movie at its original release, in the theater with my family. The whole point was to make light of the idea that "there is someone out there for everyone". The same little joke was repeated in Dodge Ball, with a similar looking actress.

I got braces when I was 12, and had to wear them for two years. They were hideous. And my brother teased me relentlessly, telling me every single time I wore my hair in pigtails that I looked just like that "metal mouth" girl in the movie. I retaliated later when he got braces and called him "Jaws" whenever my mom was out of earshot, for three years straight.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Check this missed joke page related to Dolly and braces: debrief.commanderbond.net...

If nothing else it shows that ME happened to some people (second post from top) already in the eighties.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't "always dismiss" anything.

sorry that I implied that



I look at each instance individually and as carefully as I can.

and then dismiss the irrational, right?



How do you detect a "change" in the universe? Dig down one level ...

How does one "dig down one level"? One level of what?



Why do we think that a "change" in the universe has happened?
Who is we? I certainly never said that I thought a "change" in the universe happened. I have simply been speculating about alternate explanations for the phenomena of ME because the mundane explanation does not exactly fit for a few of my own memories.



What would that be? Would it be something that only affected a few people? Or affected a lot of people differently ... individually?
Good question and worth postulating. I don't have the answer though. Do you?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

A little humorous/weird moment just now...this happened when I was typing my last reply to you. I swipe text, and the updated dictionary is not compatible with that keyboard option. So essentially, you have to build your own, added to the basic one. "Reprogramming" is not in my swipe text predict; I've never added it to the dictionary.

*cue 'Twilight Zone' theme*




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Sure, a more precise analogy, anyway.

The day a huge, well known FACT changes, though, is the day my pretense of "it's all cool" fails, even if for a moment!

When I read an unfamiliar name as President and Tanznarnia is a world power, I mean.

I now wonder about the people I've read about in countless Fortean accounts who awake to a completely different family, life... and won't assume brain malfunction as the ONLY answer, anymore.

I liked the mention of increasing novelty a la Timewave Zero /T McKenna earlier... being an old psychonaut, I know reality is deeply weird, and ... who knows?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Heh.. .sorry, but had to post a response to that one... I've had a definite uptick in "synchronicity" lately, that ebbs and flows, but .. .it seems to be on the rise... even before having this on my mind!

But that's a difficulty with this subject, the cause-effect/chicken-egg puzzle of consciousness-reality. What came first, and which is primary... or is it a moot point?

Anyway, it creates some fuzz.. .or fluff.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: glowdog
i guess it´s my memory again but i was just seriously shocked when i found out that it seems to be "Looney Tunes" and not "Looney Toons".
Looney Tunes ? seriously ... gave me the mandela-effect so to say.
haha the more one looks at this the wackier it gets...


In my reality it was always Toons.
What the hell? Yes it's Toons. Not Tunes. Otherwise Toontown would be Tunetown. Tunes makes no sense. At all. Toons is short for cartoons. But crap, I just searched and though Wikipedia references both, they have a screen cap of a 1940's era version saying Looney Tunes. Shaking my head. I'll be willing to concede faulty memory on this, though, because I haven't watched or paid any attention to the characters/franchise since I no longer have nor babysit children young enough to be interested in them. At least the more recent characters are still called Tiny Toons and they show is still Tiny Toons Adventures. Weird. Why would it be Tiny Toons and not Tiny Tunes for the sake of consistency?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

There's no problem with out of the box thinking.

There's no problem with anyone beleiving what they believe.

I can only speak for myself. It's not even for me a matter of a belief system.

I look at the incident to see what I see. So far, I've seen what can be explained by the mundane.




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krneki

...and these two posts, one of which may explain why there were chuckles in the theater when I watched it for the first time. We were expecting braces but they weren't there. I think I can cross another off my list.





edit on 5/6/2016 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: hard to read text in pic, changed to link



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: SheeplFlavoredAgain
Tunes makes no sense. At all.


Disney, 1929, "Silly Symphonies"

Warner, 1930, "Looney Tunes"

Warner, 1931, "Merrie Melodies"



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

... or maybe when they discover Fernando Poo.



... oh, wait ... Bioko



(Edit, I was sure the island was totally fictional ... in fact, I "remember" looking it up the first time I read Illuminatus!
edit on 6-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

No, Toon town is where the cartoon characters live. Looney Tunes is the types of songs they sing...it fits with the theme considering it is also Merrie Melodies.

The younger generation is more confused by this one because of Tiny Toons.
edit on 6-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

You watched Moonraker when it came out? So the person in the Image isn't you? I am pretty old and I wasn't even old enough to see it in 1979 (or if my parents took me I sure don't remember)...Did it not come out in 1979 in your reality?
edit on 6-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

That's actually pretty funny


Google knows what's up I guess.

I said it in other posts as well as this one. Intentional memory manipulation is far more believable than alternate realities. The problem with that is, the physical evidence is what is real, and the memories that are wrong are what would have been manipulated.

That means that the people who think they are the special ones here, are actually the ones being experimented on.
edit on 6-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Nm
edit on 6-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Joke didn't land

edit on 6-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: TombEscaper

I see what you mean. The eyebrows are definitely different, nose looks a bit different in some pics, and the mole may or may not exist in all of them.

This could be a case of Photoshop and/or make-up/grooming choices. If you can find pictures that clearly show a difference in his ears (i.e. the curve in the cartilage of the ear is like a fingerprint) then if they don't match and its not Photoshopped you might have a real mystery on your hands...

Did I miss anything?

- AB


I apologize I haven't been able to reply to everyone's propositions about the Prince situation, but as of yet, I don't see where anyone has "gotten it." Here are a few more pictures that may trigger a recognition of what is off about him now. What I have discovered through all of this is to pay attention to the instantaneous, intuitive, initial cognition of observance. After a few seconds, that is lost, overanalyzing begins, and you are basically running in circles in your mind at that point.








new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join