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.

 

Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

page: 26
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: TerryDon79




In your opinion.


It is fact. I just showed you why your response didn't apply. Mechanisms don't have feelings or knowledge.


I never said they did.

Maybe you should read my reply (to the other member) before you jump to conclusions and make things up that I never typed?


He's not actually interested in understanding what you meant. He actually doesn't want to talk about the ME at all. He wants to troll the heck out of anyone who backs him into a corner by focusing on his imaginary rules of posting and by pretending to be confused about what you meant even after it's been explained 5 or 6 or 7 times to him.




posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Your statement about a memory becoming more muddied the more often it is accessed. Ffs!
edit on 20-8-2016 by TheMaxHeadroomIncident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Your statement about a memory becoming more muddied the more often it is accessed. Ffs!


Terry, the above is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. I responded less than a page ago that I had retracted that statement completely because it was easier than explaining how it was a fair analogy, and in fact I explained at least 5 times previously what I really meant, which as far as I know, he has never really acknowledged or responded to. And yet here he is, demanding "evidence" of something I retracted VERY CLEARLY, instead of actually addressing the post I carefully constructed to clear up his misconception of what I meant.

He is trolling. Plain and simple. He does not want to actually discuss the issue.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Oh, I know. He jumps on every ME thread and "derps" people. He is very good at not answering questions and makes up silly "protocols".

I find it amusing to watch him argue a point on semantics when he uses the same thing himself.

Then he has the audacity to ask for proof of what we're saying when none of the ME'rs can offer a shred of anything.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I saw all your replies on the matter. He clearly either didn't understand or straight up ignored it. And I also saw your posts about retracting it.

Not sure if he reads everything or just skims. Either way, his replies are 90% out of context. 1% relevancy (maybe). The other 9% are just insults.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Then he has the audacity to ask for proof of what we're saying when none of the ME'rs can offer a shred of anything.


Don't so daft. The ME cannot be proven and I never claimed it is more than speculation. However, if you are going to make verifiable statements, and pass them of as fact, you should be able to back them up.

Is it that hard to understand the difference?



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

So the reply to another member asking if you "believe in the ME" where you replied "isn't it obvious?" was an untruth?

So which is it? Is the ME real or is it just speculation?



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




Terry, the above is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. I responded less than a page ago that I had retracted that statement completely because it was easier than explaining how it was a fair analogy, and in fact I explained at least 5 times previously what I really meant, which as far as I know, he has never really acknowledged or responded to.


You made an incorrect statement but did not admit to this and obviously you still don't.

Why did you "retract" it again? Because you admit it was a wrong BS statement? No? Because it was easier than explaining it was acually a fair analogy you say?

It wasn't a fair analogy, It was a bs statement.
edit on 20-8-2016 by TheMaxHeadroomIncident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




So which is it? Is the ME real or is it just speculation?


This is a dumb question, since the one doesn't exclude the other......

It can be real, but since we can't prove, or disprove it, it is speculation at this point.

Derp.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: TerryDon79




So which is it? Is the ME real or is it just speculation?


This is a dumb question, since the one doesn't exclude the other......

It can be real, but since we can't prove, or disprove it, it is speculation at this point.

Derp.


It's only a dumb question if you have difficulty answering a simple question.

Derp.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Pearj
For skeptic responses, I understand the locations have not changed for you.


Funnily enough, it never changed for you either.

This can be summed up as "lack of knowledge on the subject".


That pretty much sums of the Mandela Effect in general.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

What? It is not a simple question. It is a completely illogical question. I just explained this to you ffs.....

It can be real and yet be speculation at this point. The question can't be answered by picking one of the answers you provided.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

If something is real, there's normally some sort of evidence. ME'rs have zero evidence.

So, do you think that this "effect" is real? A simple yes or no will suffice.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I see, you dropped the "speculation" option because you now realise your question was BS. You are not going to admit that?

So back to asking random and redundant questions again.




So, do you think that this "effect" is real? A simple yes or no will suffice.


So another random question with the option of two answers that both don't apply, and all because you think the answer would allow you to make some sort of point.

My stance already became clear in the previous posts. I think it could be real.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

I'll give you a bone. Start with shuttle astronauts. I am not saying they travel anywhere near light speed. The approach light speed to a greater extent than us on earth. I think time slows for them. When they land, they aged at a rate relatively slower than us on earth. Not a time jump, but a slip.

Then you can say timeline jumpers are from timelines in resonant frequencies by octaves to the frequency of our time line from expanding universes who's velocities are 98 percent light speed. If they under sudden acceleration like a rocket launch, they are forced into a time jump.The closer you approach light speed, mass increases. When the jump is made, the sudden change in velocity and mass creates earthquakes upon entry into the new timeline. Maybe upon entry they undergo some strange soul fusion with their resonate double?
edit on 20-8-2016 by neutronflux because: Fusion is better than fission.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Another deflection so you don't have to answer the most simplest of question.

How difficult is it to answer?

Do you believe the Mandela effect is real?

Yes
No

I would go for no because of all the evidence pointing at what it really is. Faulty memory, misinterpretations and poor education.

No doubt you'll fail to answer this question again, as you have multiple times in the past.

Yes or no?

Derp.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Another deflection so you don't have to answer the most simplest of question.


Wow you are obtuse. What is there to deflect. I can't answer with yes or no because I can't know if it is real or not.




I would go for no because of all the evidence pointing at what it really is. Faulty memory, misinterpretations and poor education.


Good for you. You feel it is due to bad memory, etc. Wow, shocking development.




No doubt you'll fail to answer this question again, as you have multiple times in the past.


You act like I owe you something.




Yes or no?


Nothing has changed since the previous post. Both answers don't apply.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: jaeart

According to my logic (which I think is fair), out of all possibilities, the most PROBABLE cause of the Mandela Effect is faulty memory of the subjects.

On the other hand, if we entertain the lesser possibility of a glitch in our reality, it is interesting that the idea of an omnipotent God becomes very unlikely because the universe created by a God isn't supposed to malfunction.


Now this is a cool contribution to the thread. I hadn't really thought about that before. However, I suppose believers in an omnipotent God would simply insist that God had intended the "glitch."
Interesting through.


Good one.
One could also argue that God is not perfect, that he too makes mistakes.....
Just one typo on his heavenly iMac and a whole species goes 'poof', not an easy job by any means!

Back on topic, the only other occurence of a world-wide 'time quake' was in April 2013 as far as i can make out, and even then nothing changed except time itself.
Any change in our biology/timeline would have to be so complete that all books films etc, plus all our memories, would have to be wiped. In other words we could all wake up tomorrow with 6 fingers and everyone would find it quite normal.
That is not happening here, what i see here is more like mass hysteria.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

So, you don't know if it's real, yet dismiss all evidence that is contrary to it being real.

You attack and ridicule anyone who says it isn't real.

You act like it is a real thing.

But never mind, it might not be real.

Yeah. Obvious troll is obvious.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




So, you don't know if it's real, yet dismiss all evidence that is contrary to it being real.


There is no such evidence that says the ME isn't real.




You attack and ridicule anyone who says it isn't real.


Aw poor little Terry. And you didnt do any ridiculing yourself?




You act like it is a real thing.


I act like it could be a real thing.




Yeah. Obvious troll is obvious.


Yet you are constantly in these Skunk Works threads, intended for speculative theories that can't be corrroborated, demanding proof.

So who is the troll here?




top topics



 
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join