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.

 

Separating the Mandela Effect From Memory

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
My goal with this thread is to attempt to prove that there's evidence for the Mandela Effect outside of only people's memory. The following list is by no means exhaustive but it's a start.

1. Depend Underwear

You don't believe that the name of the product was once "Depends"? Go to YouTube and type the word "depends" into the search bar. Do you see all the results?

Now, do a search.

Depends Commercial

Depends commercial

The above commercials were not made by the company that makes Depend. Here are some official commercials from the company:

x1987 - Commercial - Depend Undergarments w/June Allyson - Get back into life with Depends.

1992 Depends commercial w/June Allyson

2. Forrest Gump - "Life was like a box of chocolates"

Go to YouTube and type the words "Life is like a box of chocolates" into the search bar. Do you see all the results?

In every YouTube result I see, the quote is "Life is like a box of chocolates." However, click on one of the videos and you'll hear "Life was like a box of chocolates."

3. Interview with the Vampire

Go to YouTube and type the words "Interview with a Vampire" into the search bar. Do you see all the results?

In YouTube the search results have mostly changed to "Interview with the Vampire." However, listen to the first few seconds of the following interview:


www.youtube.com...

Tom Cruise clearly calls the book "Interview with a Vampire."

4. "No, I am your father."

Go to YouTube and type the words "Luke I am your father" into the search bar. Do you see all the results?

The following video is unbelievable. It's entitled "Luke, I am your father." reaction:

Yet, on the audio of the video you hear "No, I am your father."

"Luke, I am your father." reaction

The following clip should be conclusive. "Luke, I am your father." was put into the film "Tommy Boy" specifically to quote Darth Vader.


www.youtube.com...

5. VW Emblem

There is a lot of photographic evidence for two different VW emblems existing at the same time presented in the following video.


www.youtube.com...

I believe Occam's razor suggests that the "most probable answer is bad memory" theory is not a good theory at all.

Why?

If millions of people come forward to all report that they believe they've experienced the Mandela Effect for any particular thing; in order to believe that the "bad memory" theory is the answer you have to assume a faulty memory for every one of those millions of people.

That's millions of separate assumptions; it is not one assumption.

It is a very poor theory for that reason IMHO. I find it to be absurd and not even worth considering for that reason.

Adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality

As I stated in the thread linked to above, adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality. The problem with the Mandela Effect is that it takes assumptions to explain it.

I just wish people who were trying to "debunk" it would understand that the assumptions they're making are often just as unlikely as the assumptions Mandela Effect believers are making in their theories to explain the phenomenon.

The reason I've ignored the Mandela Effect up until now is because I think it's pointless to discuss because of all the assumptions people on both sides of the issue are making.
edit on 26-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I must be out of my mind. It was Depends.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I typically never cross-post, but I think in this instance it is relevant to have the full posting here. The original post was in this ATS thread (The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg ---> My Post)
----

OK, I decided to do 2 hours of research into this phenomena to gather some actual empirical evidence of at least one of these claims. I decided to choose the Fruit Loops vs Froot Loops since I have some in my pantry as we speak. So, it is close to home for me. There are numerous cases of misspellings that children would remember regarding "Fruit Loops" vs. "Froot Loops". Where the correct spelling is a made-up word, Froot (legally Kellog's could not use the word Fruit in advertising it since it contains no real fruit).

Let's start this journey with misspelling as "Fruit"

For the childhood memories
(1989) Small Wonders: Hands-on Science Activities for Young Children

(2007) Crossing Caine's Road



For the adult memories
(1996) The World of the Autistic Child: Understanding and Treating Autistic Spectrum Disorders

(2013) Cereal Sweets & Treats


Find more at this Google Books Search Link

The correct trademarked name "Froot"

Kellogg's Own History (always correct "Froot" spelling)
A link to Take a fruity walk down memory lane showing the history of the brand.

Existing video/commercials

Commercial from 1962


Commercial from 1981


Commercial from 1995


Conclusion

So now, you may be wondering why the difference in spelling? Well, if you understand trademark law you will know the answer. The name of the cereal is (and always was) trademarked as "Froot Loops (tm)". If you want to write and publish something discussing the cereal, and want to use the trademarked name, you need to go through the Kellogg's legal department. Typically that means paying them for the right to use the name in your publication. However, there is a legal loophole whereas if you use the name "Fruit Loops" it is not violating their trademark at all. So, in any publication that did not get legal approval to use the trademarked actual cereal name in their publication, you will see it written as "Fruit Loops". Which is also why all the official Kellogg's usage is "Froot Loops (tm)" on boxes, paraphernalia commercials,, etc...

So, those that read the "fruit" spelling remember that one more unless they regularly purchased the actual cereal or otherwise always exposed in some way to the boxes or commercial product placement, etc... So, in a sense, their memory is partially correct, since the actual trademarked name never was spelled as "Fruit" due to the legal issues Kellogg's avoided by using a made up word of "Froot".


I hope this helps clarify this just a bit for some folks. It only took a few hours of my time to dig into it to find a viable reason for the discrepancy in the memories of these folks. I suspect something similar might be happening for the other things brought up surrounding this phenomenon.

edit on 5/26/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: Profusion

I must be out of my mind. It was Depends.



To me, a sign that you're out of your mind is when you see the evidence right in front of you and you ignore it.

Look at the satirical commercials I posted in the original post. The name of the product was "Depends." The name "Depends" is even written in the title for one of the official commercials:

1992 Depends commercial w/June Allyson

Here's one that's downright shocking. The women in the following video refer to the product as "Depends" and they hold up the product and the name of it is "Depend."


www.youtube.com...


originally posted by: Krakatoa
I hope this helps clarify this just a bit for some folks. It only took a few hours of my time to dig into it to find a viable reason for the discrepancy in the memories of these folks. I suspect something similar might be happening for the other things brought up surrounding this phenomenon.


The methodology you used to attempt to 'debunk' the "Froot Loops" Mandela Effect claim would have no bearing on any of the five examples in the original post.

For each of those five we've got one or more of the following:

Photographic evidence

Video evidence

Digital evidence recorded in the Internet

That's a whole different thing compared to people only basing their claims on memory.
edit on 26-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Depends being a plural of Depend, nullifies the argument. Plurals juxtapose with base words all the time in our vernacular and are substituted all the time. Have a shot of Jack Daniel's



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Fine, I provided EACH of those types of evidence to you, as well as a logical reason for the discrepancy. I see now no matter how much you are provided, you will ignore all input that does not meet your internally accepted narrative. So, I bid you well. I certainly hope you survive this mental conundrum you seem to be having here... I mean that.

Safe travels. This will be my last post on this topic forever.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Depends being a plural of Depend, nullifies the argument. Plurals juxtapose with base words all the time in our vernacular and are substituted all the time. Have a shot of Jack Daniel's


Would people do that when they're making satirical commercials about the product?

Depends Commercial

Depends commercial

Or how about when they're making a prank phone call where sounding authoritative is crucial?

"Depends" Prank

Or how about when they're just talking about the product for fun?

Testing Out 'Depends'

We ♥♡ depends

In order for the theory you just presented to be correct, one must assume that each time someone referred to the product as "Depends" they were just using the plural form of a product's name as a nickname or some such thing?

Can you point to another product where that occurs?

The thing that 'debunkers' like you don't seem to realize is that you're strictly basing your arguments on assumptions. Every assumption you add makes your case weaker.


originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Profusion

Fine, I provided EACH of those types of evidence to you, as well as a logical reason for the discrepancy. I see now no matter how much you are provided, you will ignore all input that does not meet your internally accepted narrative. So, I bid you well. I certainly hope you survive this mental conundrum you seem to be having here... I mean that.

Safe travels. This will be my last post on this topic forever.



This is the biggest bluff I've ever seen on an Internet forum. All you did was provide an unprovable, unfalsifiable theory about what may be happening. You proved nothing. I cannot believe that you think you proved anything with that post.

If you believe you proved something, how did you prove it?
edit on 26-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Why can't people's egos allow them to be wrong?

Your rememberer sucks, that's it.
(Rememberer is my little girls word
)
edit on 26-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
Why can't people's egos allow them to be wrong?

Your rememberer sucks, that's it.


How can I be wrong when I'm pointing out definite discrepancies that anyone can see? I don't have to repeat what I wrote in the original post but I want to add some things.

First, all of the results that come up in YouTube's search bar have nothing to do with memory. They are there now. I thought it would be condescending to point out something so obvious. In order to believe that those results come from millions of people typing the wrong things, you may as well be starting a religion around the "bad memory" theory. Why? Because it takes as much faith to believe that all of those results come from millions of people's bad memories as it does to believe in a full-blown religion.

Second, none of the examples in the original post have anything to do with memory. You can see them right now. In order to explain them away, it takes another theory outside of the "bad memory" theory. The "bad memory" theory will not work with those examples.

Third, no one has even tried to discuss anything outside of the "Depend" example. I wonder why? It's because they are complete anomalies. Do you think Tom Cruise didn't know the name of the book that he was studying for a film role? Not a chance. And, that has nothing to do with memory. The VW emblem example stands on its own as one of the most unbelievable things I've ever seen. No one outside of myself in this thread will even mention it.

None of that has anything to do with memory.

Fourth, "Interview with the Vampire" doesn't even make sense. There are multiple vampires in the film so there was no one vampire. Who would be THE vampire? The new title loses any meaning.
edit on 26-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

First, all of the results that come up in YouTube's search bar have nothing to do with memory. They are there now.


True stuff. It's not as if Depend(s) went out of production 30 years ago and people can't remember what they were called. They've been on the market the whole time, and people still call them Depends, even without having any knowledge of what is happening here. Because that's what they've always known them as, and it's what they've always been until very recently. Objectors who want to rebut against ME by using the faulty memory argument are putting up a straw man.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: Profusion

First, all of the results that come up in YouTube's search bar have nothing to do with memory. They are there now.


True stuff. It's not as if Depend(s) went out of production 30 years ago and people can't remember what they were called. They've been on the market the whole time, and people still call them Depends, even without having any knowledge of what is happening here. Because that's what they've always known them as, and it's what they've always been until very recently. Objectors who want to rebut against ME by using the faulty memory argument are putting up a straw man.


You can't win a debate against people who think they can make unlimited assumptions, present unfalsifiable claims as facts, prove nothing concerning their case, and then proceed to claim victory in the debate based on nothing but their claims.

The "bad memory" theory believers do not seem to be able to comprehend that each and every assumption one adds to a theory makes it less likely to be correct.

Adding assumptions does not get one closer to reality

You see it all the time, someone tries to "build a case" by stating a bunch of assumptions. I don't know where some people are coming from but they actually seem to think the greater amount of assumptions they state, the stronger their case is.

It's easy to prove mathematically that more assumptions make an argument weaker.


www.mathsisfun.com...

As the picture above describes, the more assumptions your argument requires, the more unlikely you are to be right. If each of your first three assumptions has a 50% probability of being true then the probability of all three of those assumptions being right simultaneously is only 12.5% (if they are "independent events").

An argument that must have only two such assumptions be right is automatically much stronger than one that must have three such assumptions be correct simultaneously.

I know there are many people on this website that reject logic completely. That's fine, you don't need logic at all to accept that what I'm explaining in this post is true, you just need to accept the undeniable mathematics involved.

The next time you're watching a video or reading a theory where about ten assumptions are stated as facts before a conclusion is made (which requires all or most of the assumptions to be true), just move on. You're way out there in woo woo land right from the start.
edit on 26-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Debunkers don't make sense ! look here translation in germany... it's A vampire. I find hard to believe that translators can't distinguish A from THE. There are more examples...

Kinda weird most translations from English are exactly as american's remember them ??


Interview with a vampire



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Great thread! I remember all the things you posted in your first post. There are plenty of things I don't remember, but those I do. I was shocked when I first found out about this Mandela affect. I don't know how or why things changed, but they did.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Profusion

Debunkers don't make sense ! look here translation in germany... it's A vampire. I find hard to believe that translators can't distinguish A from THE. There are more examples...

Kinda weird most translations from English are exactly as american's remember them ??


Interview with a vampire


The following video introduces a concept called "reality residue." Whoever made the video searched for references to things being the way I remember them (for the most part, there are a few things I have no opinion on). They found references in old newspapers that would conclusively prove the Mendela Effect if the clippings are genuine. I wonder what the 'debunkers' would say if you could show them physical newspaper clippings that proved the Mendela Effect is real?

They would probably just keep making up theories out of nowhere. Have you noticed that's the common method of the 'debunkers' on this topic? They make up theories and claim them to be facts without a shred evidence. Then, they declare themselves to be the winner of the debate while they've done nothing but waste time. It's very childish and ridiculous but it's their typical method of operation on almost every topic so we shouldn't be surprised.


www.youtube.com...


originally posted by: Night Star
Great thread! I remember all the things you posted in your first post. There are plenty of things I don't remember, but those I do. I was shocked when I first found out about this Mandela affect. I don't know how or why things changed, but they did.


Thank you very much. Considering your response, I think you should watch the following video. Some people think those of us finding ourselves in another reality may have been "raptured." I think it's a possibility. Do you have an opinion on that?


www.youtube.com...
edit on 27-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

and yet - all you offer is peoples misspronunciations // miss-spelling

evidence would be an actual box , book cover , DVD case ,photo of an phuysical object

but no - here we go with another thread that fails in its own premise



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
R brns d wrd thngs fr s bcs w lwys t bsy t ctch t ll.


Never trust your brain to function for you. It functions out of self preservation.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

so ... here you have it



I bet that you DEPLUNK it by being made in China or so...


edit on 5272016 by frenchfries because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I'm reposting something here that I'm hoping for feedback on. Any comments?


originally posted by: Profusion
I was just looking at some of the TV shows that seem to have appeared in my reality. The probability that I would have no knowledge of any of them is nearly zero. I was a cartoon junkie growing up. I loved The Brady Bunch too. I loved Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy, and almost all cartoon shows growing up.

There seems to be a common theme with all of the shows below. They all seem to be from a kinder, gentler alternate reality than the one I'm from. I'm getting the feeling that there is probably a continuum of alternative realities that range from heavenly to hellish. My guess is that the reality I'm from is more on the hellish side and the reality that the TV shows below come from is more on the heavenly side. Any thoughts on that?

Mandela Effect - The Brady Brides? WTF??? lol

Mandela Effect - Brady Bunch Hour

Mandela Effect - Brady Bunch Parallel Universe Proof (Must See)

Mandela Effect - Jackson 5 Cartoon? Parallel Universe Proof

Fonz and the Happy Days Gang Opening

THE MORK & MINDY/LAVERNE & SHIRLEY/FONZ HOUR (Opening/Closing Sequence) - 1982

LAVERNE & SHIRLEY IN THE ARMY - (Opening Sequence, 1981)

The Brady Kids [Opening Theme]

The Berenstain Bears - The Green Eyed Monster [Full Episode]

Sanford, SFD 1-10 - The Ring
About Simulated Reality 'Theory'.



originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Profusion

and yet - all you offer is peoples misspronunciations // miss-spelling

evidence would be an actual box , book cover , DVD case ,photo of an phuysical object

but no - here we go with another thread that fails in its own premise


Videos and pictures are not evidence? Criminal justice systems all over the world disagree with you. Many people have gone to prison based on pictures and videos.

You're claiming that every time someone referred to the product "Depend" as "Depends", they were mispronouncing it? Do you realize that you're making a separate assumption for each time? In just the videos that I've posted in this thread, that would be dozens of assumptions. I could post many many more such videos and I'm sure we could find countless examples of people on video saying "Depends" instead of "Depend." People who don't care about truth can make endless assumptions and ignore the probability that they're right but I'm not one of those people.

As for "misspellings", you're just assuming that my examples are "misspellings." Again, feel free to keep making endless assumptions, that's none of my business.

You ignored so much of the evidence including the "Tommy Boy" clip, the Tom Cruise clip (he mispronounced "the", did he?), the Forrest Gump quote (apparently all of the people uploading videos misspelled "was" as "is", sure), the mass examples of "Luke, I am your father" titles on YouTube, and the VW emblem example.

Then you define 'evidence' by your own definition and claim that I must comply with your demands concerning what 'evidence' is or I'm failing?

That's your standard and you have every right to think that way. I'll go with photographic and video evidence unless I have a reason to believe that it's not genuine.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Good find !

In a way I do not think that any amount of evidence will convince a single DeBunker.
For me it is absolute unthinkable that it is Christopher Reeve I know this a 1000% I'm not an english native and invented esspecially for his name the association french verb rever (dream ) -r + s -> Christopher's Dream ... So his name is etched in my memory for sure.

Anyway , I was pretty sick of ME. For me it's clear this reality is notting more than a Simulation. If people like
John Gates are finding ECC code in our 'universe' I just stop listening to 'Debunkers/Sceptics' that just regurgitating the general opinion.

For Me , Accept Reality is a Simulation of some kind , and the Simulation is changing to a less kinder one.

Good Luck!



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
You can't win a debate against people who think they can make unlimited assumptions, present unfalsifiable claims as facts, prove nothing concerning their case, and then proceed to claim victory in the debate based on nothing but their claims

I have never seen any explanation for Mandella Effects that does not rely on assumptions or unfalsifiable claims. If I assume as fact that there has been a shift in timelines then how do you prove that I'm wrong? How do I prove I'm right?


edit on 27-5-2016 by Vasteel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join