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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 88
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:36 AM
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

In my experience on ATS, it seems like if you expect a certain thread to take off, it doesn't. If you wonder if you will get any replies, or any positive ones, it takes off. Often there is no rhyme or reason to it, you just seem to get lucky. Why this particular Mandela Effect thread has done so well is beyond me. Right subject at the right time, it would seem.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:46 AM
a reply to: tigertatzen

Sorry lol That's how I remember it anyway. For all we know, it may have been the fourth, changed to the third and back again. (Trying to make you feel better)

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

But you aren't American though, so perhaps you just misunderstood your friend? It has always been the final Thursday of the month as that starts the crazy shopping season.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:51 AM

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
Ever since I started reading this thread, I've been noticing more synchronicities. Today, one of those prodded me towards the idea of some sort of EMF weapon possibly combined with the latest TV and computer displays. The idea is that the blanket of electromagnetic fields from cell towers and wifi is being used kind of like a carrier wave for ELF transmissions for brain entrainment and that LCD displays are actually capable of decoding a sub-signal from the digital TV receiver or from a computer connected to the internet to display subliminal messages. For some reason I want to say just Windows computers..not sure why...

Anyway, it's just an idea I had and I haven't had a chance to "dig in" to it yet but I thought I would post it here tonight because I won't have much time tomorrow to play on ATS.

A late thought I just had: I think this would help explain why the Mandela Effect is mostly related to memory and English speaking countries.

this was 30 years ago listen close from 4:45 to 5:03:

link to vid

Wow. It could indeed explain some things. An interesting new possibility

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Wow, thanks! I love this thread and do what I can

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:11 AM
a reply to: Orborus

Thank you for the details. So, the changes and discrepancies appear to be more than just minor, to put it mildly.

As my dad you used to say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

There doesn't appear to be much of a problem with which week and which Thursday on the calendar Thanksgiving Day has always fallen. (Thank goodness!)
I think it was just a miscalculation on someone's part.

That's something which would really stick out for me - if it had been changed to the third Thursday of the month. I've been through plenty of Thanksgiving Days.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:41 AM
I have a whole bunch of mundane chores to take care of today but I want to mention something before I post more about it later. Since I watched one YouTube video the other day about this phenomena -- the one about Earth having moved to a different part of the solar system -- YouTube is now loading up my home page with all sorts of videos about the Mandela Effect. I decided to watch one of them yesterday and there are people who interpret this Effect as something very positive.

So, just for a different perspective I will post more later on this, for what it's worth.

Thank you, OP, for putting this thread in Skunk Works.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:51 AM
Along with pondering what it means that "the Mandela Effect(s)" seem to be restricted to English-speakers ...

Again, as we consider "what is going on" we should not fail to notice that seemingly for so many here, the "Effect(s)" differ from person to person. Sometimes significantly. Unless we were to assume that we have visitors from multiple alternate timelines/dimensions here, it seems obvious that the "Effect(s)" tend to be unique and individual.

That tells me a lot about what's likely going on.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's what I noticed from the first time this affect got brought up and even more so in the Beresntain thread. The posters in that thread could NOT agree on the wrong spelling. Bernsteen, Bernstein, Berenstein etc. They were each more than confident that their spelling was correct and everyone else was wrong. My brother was the Berstein crowd. My sisters were with me in Berenstain, my oldest niece was Berenstein. Why? I knew Berenstain was spelled Berenstain, but I pronounced it Bernsteen to my brother, maybe out of laziness or a thick southern accent which faded with time. I know I pronounced it that way because my mother has me on home video in the early 80's (maybe late 70's) reading to him. I even thought to myself, why the heck did I pronounce it that way? The reason? My mom thought it was pronounced Berenstein and told me people could spell their names however they wanted. She just assumed it should be pronounced Stein (styne) because stain didn't make sense. We didn't have television until I was about 10 so we had no reference point.

So my brother was CONVINCED the correct spelling was Bernstein. He lost the bet we made and shrugged it off as just never really having noticed or put a ton of thought into it.

This made me conduct a series of unofficial scientific tests which I outlined and reported on in the Berenstain thread. I found that the issue was almost 100% connected to English speakers, specifically Americans. I'd ask them to LOOK AT THE BOOK and spell it. The majority of the time they would look at the book and spell it...S.T.E.I.N. I'd literally have to point at the a for them. I was shocked by these findings. The majority of English speaking Americans would focus on the first part of the word and then let their brain auto fill the rest of it for them, even when looking directly at the book.

I know that I was taught to "read ahead". This method teaches you to glance at the words ahead of where you are and forced your brain to auto fill the current word you are on based on the letters in that word. This is why people who proof read for a living read one word at a time. When you "read ahead" for smooth reading, you can miss bad grammar and typos.

So the "read ahead" method that kids in English speaking schools are taught seems to be why their brains are so accustomed to filling in words with what their brain thinks is the correct spelling.
edit on 9-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

Since we're handing out congratulations and praise, I'd like to say thank you for continuing to express what your analysis of the topic shows you. Some here apparently believe we're in cahoots, but of course, that would be quickly dispelled by just about any political thread we've ever clashed in ... LOL. Or maybe they'd see that as more "evidence" for their convictions, who can say.

Right in line with what you're saying here ... more than once I've been put in mind of the lingusitic phenomenon of typoglycemia ... for example:

"I cdn'uolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg: the phaonmneel pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rseearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Scuh a cdonition is arppoiatrely cllaed Typoglycemia . "Amzanig huh? Yaeh and you awlyas thguoht slpeling was ipmorantt."

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:00 AM
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Cant believe you noticed the difference... Glad I'm not the only one. There's a group that discusses these subject, we all recall the same thing, message me if your interested.
edit on 5/9/2016 by FoxStriker because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:23 AM
a reply to: TombEscaper

sorry for the late reply bud, I've joined a group to discuss this, were pretty much all the same from the 1st Earth (sun was Yellow/Orange not white, send me a message if you want to join. It's been exciting to say the least.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
a reply to: TombEscaper

Just called, texted and facebooked several family members and they are adamant about it being McIntyre, the thought of it being McIntire is laughable to them they think I am messing with them...


I'm tripping out here, the other ones already had me questioning my own sanity but this is just too much.


FoxStriker, please check your inbox.

edit on 9-5-2016 by DigitalVigilante420 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Good post, I agree that much of it seems like language similarities based on what people HEARD, not what they actually saw. The English language is funny like that. McIntyre/McEntire is easy to confuse if you are not a big fan, and there are many different ways people pronounce that name. Chances are most folks haven't even looked at an album, they just heard the name and pictured the spelling in their head. I guarantee that if you ask anybody in her fan club, they will get it right. STEEN vs STAIN can sound almost the same when a mother is reading you a book.

Humans have vivid imaginations, and if not for spell check these days folks would misspell things constantly, because they go based on what they have heard others say and the image it projects to your mind's eye, rather than reading it yourself. For example, I thought that the word ridiculous was spelled rediculous for the longest time because the word is often pronounced with the long E sound. I know I'm not the only one who felt like an idiot when spellcheck became the norm and I realized I had been spelling it wrong for years. That certainly isn't the only word that is commonly misspelled like that and I honestly think that this is the reasoning behind the majority of examples of the Mandela affect phenomenon.

So it's not necessarily bad memory, it's the lack of memory that creates certain things that we assume are correct. If not I'd expect much bigger errors, like the Berenstain Bears being remembered as the Clarke Bears, or something similar.

The "Luke, I am your father" example is probably the toughest to explain, but I think it was based on folks just repeating it like a catch phrase to paraphrase that moment. I polled dozens of people on the "I am your father" quote asking them how big of a fan they are, and the biggest fans usually got it right, while it was usually the casual fans that made the mistake.

edit on 5 9 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:05 PM

originally posted by: Orborus

With ME the changes are happening inconsistently and over time. I only really took notice of the changes this year, organs seem really out of place for me and what I learned of anatomy. I agree diagrams etc. can be misleading (and still are) but I think I would have recalled the stomach is right under the heart (and rib cage) and that the liver is the size of a lung. Maybe some of these changes happened for some people earlier (or they've always had them) and others are only now just coming into this morphological paradigm.

As for the ribcage well yeah, clearly its always been the way it is now but if that were the case why does the sternum seem so obvious now? I never noticed we had a literal 'necktie' bone and I think that would be one of the first things I would notice since its so big and central. Also the rib cage has definitely moved up - we now have a ring of ribs in the neck! This has had the effect of making everyone's neck slightly shorter and connecting area between neck and shoulders to be larger. I now see this in everyone including myself (I definitely had a longer neck). We even tend to depict necks as sorter or even completely obscured by the head in art and icons etc. Before the lack of neck was always a stylistic choice of making a character more cartoony, now its actually somewhat accurate to our physiology

I was always fascinated with human anatomy and as an artist I had a keen sense of the general morphology of human anatomy, the general proportions etc. Now I have to throw out what I once knew. We have shorter necks, different facial structures, longer abdomens, shorter chests, etc.

Re-watching Gunther von Hagens' Anatomy tv series has been an eye-opener for me. Dissecting our new anatomy takes a different tact, it's all changed, even the choice of imagery displayed in the background...

Look at these T. Rex skeletons:

Considerably different to my memory of T. Rex and dinosaur anatomy in general, i've always been a Paleo fan (though not professional). The rib cage is too small and never had a seperate chest-cage (wasn't just omitted from diagrams/models either, it didn't exist in any). Notice the arms too - waaaay different, they seem mis-positioned (and maybe are). In my reality the arms didn't jut out like that and were more relaxed and to the side of the body.


What on earth? Once again, arms completely wrong, the chest ribs look almost like a separate spine. This never existed.

Also since when was there a rear-pointing pelvic bone in any dinosaur? It's like dinosaurs now have a scissor-like apparatus to move their legs...

I could go on endlessly - even insects have changed! What used to be a tried-and-true template for a bug (ie. three segments, legs exclusively attached to thorax) is now a three, four, sometimes even five segmented invertebrate where legs can be pretty much anywhere. Not at all how I remembered the template for insects.

I can't address any perceived changes about dino skeletons because I never took particular note of them at any time in my life and was never extensively educated on the subjected nor tested on it.

I have always had a fascination with entomology and have not noted any changes to what I observed as a child and basically at various stages of my life. Larval and immature stages of insects have always had a more complex and "messy" look to them than the standard "head, thorax, abdomen arrangement the adult forms conform to." Could you possibly be confusing larval forms with adult forms?

I absolutely agree with you about necks shortening and shoulders broadening. Way before I found this topic and your observations I noted with confusion that my neck seems much shorter and I now have a broad shoulder span. I was always built the opposite. But...old photos of me still show me having a ridiculously long neck and small shoulder span. The picture depict the neck my mom used to comment on. She said my long neck made me look like Audrey Hepburn. I am therefore left with no alternative but to consider aging and weight changes a factor. After all, I've never gone from youth to middle age before, so these changes would be startling to me.

I've noticed that in photographs the late singer Prince retained a very long neck to the end of his life. He was also very thin at the end of it. I can't really conclude, based on observations of a large number of people, that human necks on average have changed. Mine certainly has, but in humanity as an aggregate I note no change. For example, Charlize Theron is still a giraffe necked goddess!

The anatomical models I'm finding on the Internet do depict very "wimpy" shoulders and clavicles from the models I remember studying in school decades ago. But again, looking around at actual people, they look the same overall to me.

While people look pretty much the same to me, it is the anatomical models that look badly off to me. I agree everything looks shifted up way too high. The ribs look so odd I don't know where to begin. I wish I could draw for you what I remember but my skills are not up to that task anymore. The stomach looks very undersized and horizontally positioned to what I remember studying. the liver does look enormous.

Now reconciling real life observations: my stomach aches are definitely a lot higher than I remember stomach aches being prior to 2000 or so. Which is why I didn't know I had stomach problems. I thought I had esophageal pain perhaps from reflux.

I feel really ignorant but going around at least twenty years thinking my own stomach has been somewhere where it apparently is not supposed to be will make a person feel really stupid and bewildered. I didn't go to med school but I did work hard in school and paid attention in high school and college. I did attend a top rated science magnet program in high school and specialized in the biology program they offered.

Alas, my husband and my 5th grader both think I took leave of my senses when I told them about my mistake. Both of them were readily able to point out on their own abdomens where their stomachs are. And logically I should have known...I've been pregnant after all. I knew where the baby was. Where on earth did I think my stomach was while the baby took up all that space roughly where I deluded myself into thinking the stomach was? For whatever reason I failed to think it through. I do remember musing everything was pushed out of its normal position and then never gave it further thought.

I can tell you it weirds me out to have stomach aches so close to where I thought my lungs were. According to the diagrams, the topmost sections of the lungs now appear much higher than I remember. Also the lungs and rib cage taper more toward the neck than I remember, giving the upper area enclosed by the ribs a more dramatic egg shape than I was expecting to find. Lord help me, if I could draw a diagram based on what I was expecting everything to look like, my doctor would laugh his butt off! But I don't think you would. I don't know exactly where this leaves us.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:21 PM

originally posted by: FoxStriker
a reply to: TombEscaper

sorry for the late reply bud, I've joined a group to discuss this, were pretty much all the same from the 1st Earth (sun was Yellow/Orange not white, send me a message if you want to join. It's been exciting to say the least.

If you all are talking about remembering the sun as more yellow and mellow, count me in. In fact as a child, I stared right at it until it looked really fake. I challenged other idiot kids to do the same. It's a miracle I have no damage from that. I am myopic with a tiny bit of astigmatism in one eye and that's about it. I informed my opthamologist of my youthful misdeed and he assured me my eyes were healthy.

Now it's definitely an ice white shard in the sky I can't look at. Nobody I know can stand to, young or old. Even our pediatrician says things are different now and we must use sunscreen on ourselves and on the kids because she is now seeing pediatric skin cancer cases at a rate that was unheard of when she started in the practice. She doesn't know exactly why it's so bad now. Everyone else now just shrugs and says the ozone layer sucks. She just said the sun burns in a way that now causes skin cancers in children.

Contrast that to my very platinum blond light eyed father getting numerous horrible sunburns in his childhood. He did get skin cancer eventually, when he was in his 70's. Now in 2016 our pediatrician is worried my olive skinned dark haired daughter is going to get skin cancer from a few hours out in the sun despite never having had a sunburn worse than a mild red tint with little pain.

I don't draw any particular conclusions about any of this nor how it relates to the Mandela effect. I'm just curious and fascinated.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:20 PM
Reading about white sun and anatomy changes makes me thing some people live in a completely different world from the one known to me. Some of you must be aliens if you have different anatomy or you were taught some really weird stuff...

Your sun is white all the time from dawn to dusk and during sunsets or what???

It is true that unless you have seen an open body or some medical anatomy expo is it quite hard to get a real impression where all our organs lie and how big are they. But I guess you were all taught that ribcage protects the most important internal organs. And if you know that we have an average of 5-7 m of small intestines and 1.5-2 m of large intestines, you can imagine intestines must be stored below ribcage.

So stomach was never below ribcage as someone remembers.

And have never heard about anyone being able to gaze at the sun without his eyes getting hurt. Also I do not believe any of you saying that you did. Maybe at sunrise or sunset, that's normal, but definitely not on a hot sunny day without clouds at 12.00 and without any protection.

The colour of the sun does depend on atmospheric conditions and the way light refracts on the particles in the air, but I seriously doubt people see Sun as white as a paper; photographs do not count, the colours on photos are rarely calibrated to match actual colours in nature.

edit on 9-5-2016 by Krneki because: Spelling

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:32 PM
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

Sent you the link bud. let me know if you received the message.

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:40 PM
a reply to: SheeplFlavoredAgain

I don't know if this happened in your area but between one and a half and two decades ago many of the elderly around here began wearing these over-sized, wrap-around sun glasses because they said they couldn't tolerate the sunlight anymore. Scores of elderly were wearing them and it was quite noticeable. They said the sun was different.

I know, for myself, the sunlight making it through the atmosphere is stronger, brighter and more intense which could mean different things.

new topics

top topics

<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in