A Critical Look at The Mandela Effect - ME & its relation to CERN & Meme Theory

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: boncho

It's called Argumentum ad populum

Also explains flat earthers...

Funny that you mention FE, as the Mandela effect is equally absurd.

It's not though. And if it was your fallacy is fallacy fallacy My OP, if you read it is actually the opposite of Argument Ad Populum or at least it's 1/3rd opposing. While I don't rule out it's simply a trend created out of our current need to create [it still has a chicken/egg argument within], and it also has two other possible answers, 1-someone created it on purpose (with the attention it got so quickly it wouldn't surprise me), and 2-the chance it's actually real and some affect beyond the psychological effect is felt (or the psychological effect, the documented scientific effect in itself is because of a metaphysical ripple (in every case where 'a' was 'e' or 'in' was 'and' -and in each instance both instances exist separately in multiple universes among our mirrored selves and experience non-local waves of what is and isn't, which cases us to misremember (as highly unlikely as it is). Any explanation so complicated is obviously not falsifiable, but it's ignorant to think that everything must be. It simply limits our understanding [and imagination]. If philosophers and early scientists had only stuck to falsifiable evidence we'd be sitting in around thinking about the same things they did, thousands of years ago. If they totally ignored it, we'd be there too.

There has to be an area in the middle where all types can co-exist. And no matter how well versed you or anyone thinks they are in their world view, it helps seeing things from an alt-perspective sometimes.

I'd argue it's nearly impossible for Flat Earth to have gained as many viewers and proponents as it had, without someone designing or affecting, or influencing the current trend (though it could be a result of a larger trend across the entire population).

Though it naturally didn't take on such a wide audience when the internet first arrived, and even after the conspiracy sets had set their place. I'd also argue there is quantifiable influence to political discussion in conspiracy websites and elsewhere on the web, and Id probably have a decent argument with how much evidence has come out showing it's a reality. Ruling out outside influence without any reason or evidence to do so, for what? To pat ourselves on the back...no.

After thinking all night I came to think you are right, the sign especially you made sense of and from there your arguments are good.

a reply to: UberL33t

In what way is that 'pot kettle/black'? Im trying to see it but Im not seeing what you are seeing? Disinformation is documented fact. This does not contradict anything I've said previously. In fact, I cite very clearly there's evidence to show UFOs/Aliens are the main topic being prevented being from disseminated. It, and the occult remain two subjects they refuse to declassify.

There are two very prominent themes in conspiracy research. Natural and organic topics, and topics manipulated by influence & control. When you identify both, you are able to make a judgement, on which ones are real, and which are being used to cover up realities. Many are real themes, but bad information pushed with the same storyline, false info injected to discredit the topic.

Also, I cited the fact that there is social and cultural programming efforts, applied psychology at work in our world. That controlling influences use disinformation. (0) (1), (2), (3),(4) +x000s more available sources -



Disinformation

After reading the above quote (and many more along the same lines exist - the above from a briefing with the president at the time) Im not sure how anyone reconciles this with steadfast belief in anything. The strongest conviction one might gain would be in the absence of information, rather than the abundance of it [or] In recognizing intent over finality of information, and the accepted theme. In other words - e.g. looking for what's missing. Like how UFOs/Aliens are missing as background noise in current leaks and in government comms (in private leaks there are thousand of instances). The intended result of multiple sources spewing an illogical belief (Flat Earth) and the unnatural acceptance by those who embrace it (the intent of the distraction). Chad thinks Mandela Effect is similar to Flat Earth. In which case we have to ask ourselves what are they trying to distract from with ME? Flat Earth very obviously takes away from Hollow Earth, something pervasive through numerous cultures across history. A mirror of that in relation to ME would suggest there is something they are trying to cover up.




(1), (2), (3), (4), (5)


And it's Getting Worse

Now, there's a debate whether or not the controlling influences are the 'Illuminati' and whether or not they exist. Ill be posting a thread soon connecting the most influential people in the world directly to the Rothschilds, who are known as 'illuminated' by their collection of illuminated books, which are managed under a company called: E.L. Rothschild/illuminated

If you think they have no influence over policy or what programs come into being, that's up to you. The facts speak for themselves, and since we have a long history of having reality warped, it very likely does speak to a much larger effort that has a specific underpinning by powers and influences. It doesn't mean that everyone operates to fulfil a single objective, but it means there are people so powerful they nullify most of what everyone else is doing. And their influence absolutely is shaping our world.

If you aim is to say, "well you said UFOs and Aliens are being suppressed, but then you said false info is being used elsewhere, so that means U&A topic is just false info to distract from xyz - using the same logic" = No, I didn't. If that's your premise you are simply incorrect. The UFO/Alien topic goes back thousands of years. Waves of sightings and interaction in biblical times. Waves in 1500s, 1600s France. 1000 sightings between 1800s-1900s. The Vatican is the largest telescope and observatory owner. The Jusuits & Vatican blocked investigation into UFOs, while whistleblowers from the Vatican, have come forward, and they've changed to a policy of aimed-disclosure/soft-disclosure, whatever you want to call it (preparing for contact), and all the cases on hand simply can't explain every case.

However, everything we think we know about history, could easily be viewed as a cover for the topic.

a reply to: boncho

Anyone know what his shirt is about?

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Good catch! Ill look into it later. Looks like an equation.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: boncho
Gotta disagree, Mandela effect is driven by others affirming one another.

You can find that in every community related to every subject just about anywhere. There are people who think "male dominated society" purposely says stuff to "trigger" them and "mentality rape" them. If someone thinks that developed on its own without an agenda behind it though... Uh, nope.


In 2007 and prior, many were speaking about government spying and mind control. How many 'the government is spying on us' topics have we had before the latest PRISM leaks? Quite a few I imagine. Lots of people agreeing with each other.

Of course by the time Snowden leaked, all those past cases would be vindicated in some sense. Does it mean they were Ad Populum until proven right, but false prior?

Seen plenty of posts here that cite their evidence for their claims by referring to others who agree with their premise.

Pretty much every subject, every topic, everywhere has that. The logical fallacy you are citing is relevant if a specific individual is arguing to you that "it's real because so many people are talking about it." and "would a fake topic be recognized by so many people?" or "How can this not be happening when so many people experience it?" ----Those are all argument ad pop arguments. I never presented it as that, or claimed it had merit because of social dispersion.

Reddit and YouTube for example.

Reddit lost its warrant canary. Reddit also is heavily infiltrated, and pretty much the opposite of what Aaron Swartz had in mind when he helped create it.

Shooting Censored on reddit - Mass Exodus follows --- Pro Donald Trump shills taking over reddit, ---- Hillary Clinton paying online shills to rebut or attack enemies. ----Cronyism, censorship & conspiracies are killing reddit - local dissent.

Funny you mention reddit. I was involved in a subreddit investigating real world issues, very specific in scope. People involved in the case came and infiltrated then attempted numerous coups to silence everyone involved. Also attempted to wipe out a lot of investigative work and information that had been posted already. And this happens *often* to numerous groups, especially with natural, organic group development. You are threatened not only by direct confrontation, but by a subversion, where people pretend to be aligned distort or distract membership, sideline efforts, and power grabs for modship, once acquired silencing the topic and censoring groupthink.

Reddit is really a perfect example of what I was talking about in the OP. I find the blatant manipulation incredibly disturbing. I even made a recent thread on it re:election & political steering. Reddit & Youtube are two of the worst places for outside influence by NGOs, applied psychology programs & social engineering. That's basically the point of the OP.

The question is where do these topics fit into the spectrum. Were they created to distract from something else? Was it a social/psych experiment in its totality(?), so on and so forth.

The internet is nothing like the early days of BBS, IRC & Newsgroups, where people had very natural and fluid discussions, where themes & memes took much longer to develop, individual opinion and experience were far more influential to the topic at hand. Most conspiracy sites look like mainstream news aggregators. "Conspiracy" forums are almost all satiated with political BS, and if you check the main pages, you will find consistent themes across numerous boards, which are clearly unnatural.

reddit/conspiracy is saturated with pro-Trump, mostly anti-Clinton posts. Mentioning it of course will earn you hundreds of down votes and bury your thread.

4chan/pol/ is a mixture of both Clinton & Trump - both calling out each others fake posts and sliding.

GLP is all pro-Trump and anti-Hillary, similar to r/conspiracy.

ATS is..well, you can judge that yourself.

The "mass-media" isn't the mass media anymore. Which is why I made the thread I did a couple weeks ago. What Im seeing is formats like reddit, which reach billions of page views, seem to be the 'front lines' or battlegrounds now, and mainstream probably isn't even a primary factor. Meaning (I posit at least) there's a very good chance the ideas pushed online are now the 'main-stream' and MSM is used if anything to push an opposite, inciting theme/reaction.

e.g. Get 450,000,000 Impressions of (x) did something to (y). MSM ignores it purposely meanwhile only getting 4,500,000, the masses speak around the water cooler saying, "O-M-G, did you see how they just totally ignored that (x) did ____ to (y)?" in effect, you create 'the real story' effect. People getting 'to the bottom' of stuff, and those who keep tabs on fake online stories, are then superior to those simply getting MSM information. Because of the 100/1 exposure, you are guaranteed the subversive message overpowers the 'official' message.

My impression anyway. It may not be happening exactly like that in every case, but my guess is it is in certain cases, for sure.

In any case, I present all those examples to point out how manipulated our internet forums are. That all subjects are subject to some kind of manipulation or subversion (for the most part) which makes it incredibly difficult for us to discuss topics without being distracted or sidelined, or kept away from another topic at hand. Ironically, 4chan/x/ (the conspiracy sub) somehow seems to have escaped outside influence (for the most part, or at least it does for extended periods). The topic quality is rather bland though. Equally ironic, DavidIcke also seems to get pretty balanced opinions across a lot of its user base, though their baseline is much further into the abyss than many others. They seem to be balanced within the 'fringe' though. In comparison, Alex Jones for instance is horrible influenced by right wing politics and numerous social programming efforts and effects therein.

How great would it be to have a sanctuary free from outside influence? Something totally impossible probably. As you limit participation you limit input, there's a sweetspot somewhere, where a forum gets popular enough it needs to be subverted, but too inconspicuous and it has no value in idea transfer.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Basically the point I was trying to make is that - if you changed history, your memories and experiences should also be changed along with it. How can everything be altered in a reality/existence for the exception of certain peoples minds?

If I went back in time and made it so that JFK did not get killed, then that is what everyone will remember in the future of that reality.

The OP addresses that question.

originally posted by: Reverbs
was tasked with guarding america against nuclear attack and worked for the department of homeland security to... do things... I was audited and needed to have 100% accuracy every week. I did that.

Oh really? Interesting.

Would love to hear more sometime.

"Those who control the past, control the present...and those who control the present, control the future."-1984

So control the past, control history and you will control the future! Just who or what is controlling....

a reply to: SeaWorthy

"The poster behind him in regards to the "puzzle piece" is the higgs boson. What you can see on his shirt is the formula for the higgs."

link

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: SeaWorthy

"The poster behind him in regards to the "puzzle piece" is the higgs boson. What you can see on his shirt is the formula for the higgs."

link

Thanks

This video is interesting again it shows the changes in names are correct and incorrect many times in the same articles or adds as though it has not all been cleaning erased or changed. Very good video I think.

The Mandela effect, as far as I can tell, is an entity changing reality

The "Mandela Effect" or "Glitch in the Matrix" phenomenon is the epitome of our solipsistic culture. Everyone in society is running around as if they just might be the only real person in the universe, and ideas like this come from viewing the real world through such a childish lens. Everyone is the God of their universe, and thereby the most special of snowflakes. Just stop and think about which is more likely:

Is my memory of some minor factoid (in terms of effect on my daily life) less than perfect? Or has there been a hiccup in the space-time continuum, changing everything in the world except for my memories, and possibly those of a few other chosen ones on a web message board?

a reply to: Reverbs
I am going to intrude here with a tiny bit of eimpirical research... i have interviewed three people on depends/depend berenstain/berenstein mcintyre mcentire and portrait/picture dorian gray... older people...and they all took the first spelling. me too so there.
splain that lucille.

Just because the equations do not prohibit it, however, it doesn't mean time travel is possible or achievable.

BUT, just for the sake of argument, lets have a few assumptions:
1- time travel is possible

2- "multiple dimensions" exist, as m-theory proposes (no concrete evidence, just something Witten and a few others explored as a possibility).

3- given the #1 assumption, travelling back in time means really travelling back in time in OUR universe (not some "parallel" one, or some other brane)


So, someone in 2016 did an experiment or went back to the past and changed something. Assuming the continuity of THAT reality, anything changed THEN becomes (as every moment in this universe's present) part of that reality/history. So, for instance, if someone went back to 1943 and helped A. Hitler win the war, no one in 2016 would ever know that the Allies won the war (aside from the "time traveller").


Obviously. What I find odd, what I find absurd or laughable is...what makes ME believers think that, after some modification of history happened in the past, anyone in the Present would know the difference?

This topic is pretty much like Flat Earth, it doesn't make sense if you put the smallest amount of thought into it, and yet some people believe in it. And when proponents of these ridiculous "theories" are challenged, they proudly state that the burden of proof is not on them, but on the rest of us.

So...after using a few brain cells to discern the truth in such preposterous claims, why can't anyone DISMISS it?

Astonishing, to say the least.

Sorry for the slightly old topic resurrection.

PS: and there's something to be said about the "someone who remembers EVERYTHING accurately":

a) memories often change or our perception of them changes. So, often enough, memories should not be trusted.
b) I have met people with eidetic memory and others with an absurd capacity to remember a LOT OF THINGS/FACTS/books/movies/interviews/articles, people who can dig up things which happened many decades ago. But remembering EVERYTHING?! Well, yeah, on TV, in particular a certain Poppy Montgomery series...sure.
c) taking for granted that assumption #2 above is right (multiple dimensions), what does "remember everything" entails? All events in all dimensions? All events in all dimensions in all possible outcomes? Oh boy...

a reply to: Chadwickus

If you can't see how someone who remembers EVERYTHING accurately relate to this, then this conversation ends here. Shame, because someone like here could have validated the Mandela effect, but as usual, it's dismiss, dismiss, miss the point and dismiss.

These effects are CERN, and they are real (objective), rational and purposeful. Focus on two CERN scientists, Rick Field and John Ellis. First, watch Joseph P. Farrell's discussion of CERN's probable tesla technology experimentation.

The first smoking gun is a still from the fun "Happy at CERN" video of CERN employees, set to Pharell's hit song "Happy." Ralph Ellis is seated in his office chair and holds up a piece of notebook paper that says "We are very happy @CERN." Around his neck are two hand-painted signs, crudely suspended on pieces of string. The top one says "BOND #1" and the bottom says "MANDELA." The first actor to play James Bond on film was Barry Nelson, making the message "(NELSON) MANDELA."

The second smoking gun is CERN scientist Rick Field's close relationship with his sister, actress Sally Field (widely remembered as Field*s*), who famously gushed on winning an Oscar in 1985, "You like me! You REALLY like me!" Other entertainers, not just comedians, mocked her for this without mercy. She appeared to be a good sport, even making fun of herself as well, but for a good while she was treated like the retarded kid on the playground. She must have been deeply scarred by this. *Except now, she never said it. There is still "residue" of many, many people mocking her for what she said on "the old Earth" or "Earth Prime," but the record of the incident is her saying "You like me! Right now, you like me!"* Effusive enough to justify the "residue" of her detractors, but much more restrained - making those who mocked her look mean-spirited.

Also, there are the anatomical changes: organs up inside and protected by the rib cage, no more "floating ribs" in front, a bonier sternum with less cartilage, bonier eye sockets, kidneys higher up, also shielded by the rib cage, bonier ischial tuberosities, to suit a chair-sitting, rather than a squatting, species...

To review: 1. The rescue of a great civil rights activist from a meaningless death, 2. The elimination of a painful and embarrassing memory in the life of a loved one, 3. Changes in human anatomy that protect vital organs.

All these changes are rational and purposeful. Ralph Ellis' simply-coded message shows clearly the origin of these changes. Rick Field's family relationship shows motive (and the experimental nature of the changes being wrought at this point). Note also the human skeleton in another, widely-circulated photo of Ralph Ellis' office. A medical doctor needs a skeleton. Why does a particle physicist need to study human anatomy?

Wanted to post this here because of the title...

However, Can musical copyrights be changed by the one publishing it? If not here’s a critical look at Vanilla Ice’s song ICE ICE BABY...it nearly like they changed the whole song; but like I said, can Sony legally change the song even if the don’t own it ??

Here’s the YT link

youtu.be...

a reply to: Komodo

sadly I purchased that tune on vinyl back when I was more stupid than I am today, what I remember and what the lyric is may differ slightly, but am I led to believe that somehow my vinyl has physically morphed from one lyric to another, all while tucked away in the shed in the garden and no one even knew it was there, I am more inclined to believe we just got it wrong.

The OP and this thread though have provided me with plenty of new reading material, so thanks for bringing it back to top but thanks also to OP Boncho for such a quality thread.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: boncho

weird right?

Live version my work colleague has stated straight away that he sings "of the world" this was also released as a live album



or



at least that puts james whats his face back in our timeline, oh joy

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

About the Queen song, "of the world" is sung at the end of every chorus, but not at the end of the studio version anyway. Hence why some are confused.