Mandela Effect - Ford Logo - Three New Strong Evidences Found

originally posted by: Pearj
The Ford brand is both iconic and historical. The logo is commonplace and a scrutinized collectors item for some. Needless to say the company has a vast range of fans.

When the Mandela Effect occurred the logo became a strong indicator to those that knew the logo well.

Recently, three new examples of residual evidence came to light..

Here is the current logo for comparison:

For many (myself included), the 'curly q' or 'pigs tail' in the F is new.

Here are the three new pieces of residual evidence found. Click the link for full size.

Dealership Vinyl

OEM Vinyl

OEM Water Pump

Interestingly, Henry Ford's actual signature is closer to how many remember the logo, than what it is today.

So what do you think.. Does the "old" logo look more familiar?



-----

I anticipate based on other ME threads that these things will need to be said:

This is not a company changing it's logo.

Myself and others have checked the images for signs of tampering. Additionally the logo in vinyl on the truck bed is all one piece (not chipped). You're welcome to check yourself.

I don't know what caused the Mandela Effect. I don't advocate a theory.

The ME conversation has gone past faulty memory and common mistakes.

My primary goal is to get evidence to those interested via the OP.

With that said; I assume based on ATS skeptic culture that this thread will fill with jokes, jabs and reasoning based in a general misunderstanding of how the Mandela Effect works. Don't be surprised if I'm not responsive to comments of this nature.

Sources:

Dealership Vinyl

OEM Vinyl

OEM Water Pump

The pin striping (as well as the dealer graphic, obviously) is not "OEM" it is an aftermarket thing most likely added on by the dealer, certainly not at the factory.

The water pump isn't even close to being recent...it's a very old logo on a very old pump. Don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm also going to kick the Mandela Effect to the curb. I work in printing, so I'm a bit familiar with logos, and various printing methods. Look at the examples that were posted on page one of the thread.

- Digital Version of Ford Logo
- A random old dealership vinyl of unknown size
- A small OEM vinyl
- A water pump with the logo cast into it.

Now of course the digital logo has the little curly-Q on the 'F'. Any digital vector / font file is going to be capable of very fine lines and high detail. So why don't the other three examples have the curly-Q? Because production processes for items like that don't allow for such fine detail.

Two of them are vinyl, and one is a metal casting. I'm assuming those vinyl decals aren't too large based on what I've seen in person myself. No vinyl shop is going to be able to produce those small decals with the curly-Q. That is just too fine a detail. Even if they were able to produce it, it would just break off when the decal was applied. This is simply a limitation of the process being utilized.

Same thing with the water pump. One - that looks like an old water pump. Who knows how many subtle variations of the Ford logo were designed from the time this water pump was manufactured until now. Two - those are some fine lines in that casting for the logo. I'm no expert on metal casting, but I bet if they tried to incorporate that little curly-Q - it wouldn't come out very well - if at all. I have to assume this is the same reason you don't see the connecting line between 'ord', and the little leader on the 'o'. Too difficult to cast, and they opted for legibility rather than "It has to be the EXACT Ford logo".

Lets get real. Most companies or corporations have variations of their logo for different purposes. The establishment I work for has at least four different color versions of the logo, and that's before other specific features are added (descriptive text, department specific logos, etc.).

I'm going to need some extremely blatant, in-your-face evidence if I'm going to believe in the Mandela effect.

a reply to: FarCrowd

Well don't hold your breath for that evidence as it will never show up.

The ME is nothing more than a way to make money off the gullible by the lady who created it in 2010.

As for the Ford logo...it has been shown numerous times they changed it over the years as do many other companies, but the OP just doesn't want to know he has been had with the whole ME bs.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FarCrowd

Well don't hold your breath for that evidence as it will never show up.

The ME is nothing more than a way to make money off the gullible by the lady who created it in 2010.

As for the Ford logo...it has been shown numerous times they changed it over the years as do many other companies, but the OP just doesn't want to know he has been had with the whole ME bs.

Oh, I'm not. I don't believe in in any of this timeline shift stuff. I do believe its time for some more coffee though!

a reply to: Pearj

Brand Logo's' change. Big Fn deal. I suggest you look at some big name brands like apple, and the WWE. They evolve, are rebranded etc. Any company that has issues, often rebrands to seem "new and different". Apple certainly did that when Steve Jobs came back. The White apple vs the Rainbow? Remember that? People lost their minds over that one.

I used to drive past a big ford plant everyday to work, that squiggle looks off and I thought that before even reading what you said. Interesting

a reply to: eriktheawful

This post is neutral to OP's point and against

If this is accurate it shows that the curl was always there, like how each berenstain book says berenstain as far back as you go, but people remember it as berenstein. I don't know why half these comments are people stating that companies change their logos like every single person is not already aware of this fact.. And all the anger; i'd rather have someone put something out there than keep it to themselves. That's what this site is for right. What's the motivation behind clicking the thread when you're just going to drop an essay length rant with research links on something you think is ridiculous (not directing this toward the dude i'm quoting). Just seems like a waste of time lol

a reply to: 711117

711117 Well said!

a reply to: 711117

Sorry but debunking anything is not a waste of time.

a reply to: Pearj

Why is all these ME things always about something nobody pays attention to? Find a logo quiz. Most people get several wrong. There wouldn't be that quiz if it wasn't a common trait to be unable to pay attention to the finer details of things that do not matter. The day Xbox is suddenly Ybox, I am sold.

Logo change. Companies do this over the years. No Mandela here

originally posted by: GoShredAK

That's why it is called residual evidence.

Funny this ^^

When skeptics post evidence to show ME is a delusion, they are told that's only proof of this timeline, not theirs.

When believers post evidence to show ME is real, it is accepted as such and called 'residual' evidence.

Hypocritical much?

Sorry, double post...... I blame CERN for it!

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: FarCrowd
The ME is nothing more than a way to make money off the gullible by the lady who created it in 2010.

How do you make money on the ME?

"The logo has changed! That'll be a fiver please." :p

lol - has nothing to do with a logo change.

Do you think the water pump is pre 1912?

I think those that say it's a logo change, don't understand what the Mandela Effect is.

originally posted by: Pearj
lol - has nothing to do with a logo change.

Do you think the water pump is pre 1912?

I think those that say it's a logo change, don't understand what the Mandela Effect is.

If you were replying to me then yeah I know how ME theory works, I was just asking tsurfer how he/she thinks money is being made on "the gullible".

Some MEs like words being spelled differently I can dismiss, but then people remembering Russia going to the moon is tougher.

a reply to: 711117

originally posted by: 711117
a reply to: eriktheawful

This post is neutral to OP's point and against

If this is accurate it shows that the curl was always there, like how each berenstain book says berenstain as far back as you go, but people remember it as berenstein. I don't know why half these comments are people stating that companies change their logos like every single person is not already aware of this fact.. And all the anger; i'd rather have someone put something out there than keep it to themselves. That's what this site is for right. What's the motivation behind clicking the thread when you're just going to drop an essay length rant with research links on something you think is ridiculous (not directing this toward the dude i'm quoting). Just seems like a waste of time lol

That's why I put "this is not about logos changing"... didn't matter though - "logos changing" is 4 out of 5 comments. lol

It's ok though, the people I'm trying to reach can see through it!

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: GoShredAK

That's why it is called residual evidence.

Funny this ^^

When skeptics post evidence to show ME is a delusion, they are told that's only proof of this timeline, not theirs.

When believers post evidence to show ME is real, it is accepted as such and called 'residual' evidence.

Hypocritical much?

There seems to be a problem in that there can be no proof either way atm. There are many ways for the ME to be true and those of us who have experienced what to us is profound and sometimes mind shattering changes could be real.
I can't imagine anyone truly questioning and not just jumping to conclusions should not be left wondering when studying the science possibilities.
in time there will be answers.

www.bbc.com...

At any rate, it does seem odd that the multiverse keeps cropping up wherever we look. "It's proven remarkably hard to write down a theory which produces exactly the universe we see and nothing more," says physicist Max Tegmark.

But others take seriously the idea that there are countless other "yous", created every time a quantum measurement is made. The quantum multiverse must be in some sense real, they say, because quantum theory demands it and quantum theory works.

In 1999, Randall and her colleague Raman Sundrum suggested that the branes do not just carry gravity, they produce it by curving space. In effect this means that a brane "concentrates" gravity, so that it looks weak in a second brane nearby.
This could also explain why we could live on a brane with infinite extra dimensions without noticing them. If their idea is true, there is an awful lot of space out there for other universes.

In contrast, the other universes of the many-worlds interpretation do not exist in other dimensions or other regions of space. Instead, they are right here, superimposed on our Universe but invisible and inaccessible. The other selves they contain really are "you".
In fact, there is no meaningful "you" at all. "You" are becoming distinct beings an absurd number of times every second: just think of all the quantum events that happen as a single electrical signal travels along a single neuron in your brain. "You" vanish into the crowd.

originally posted by: Agartha
Sorry, double post...... I blame CERN for it!

Bubble universes that get close too each other, may even stick together, if only temporarily, creating holes and cracks in the outer membrane. If they are joined together, like so many bubbles, then perhaps some of the physical material from one, could be transferred into the other. Now you know where that strange stuff growing inside the refrigerator came from: another dimension.

cosmology.com...

Maybe this is correct
The Egg
By: Andy Weir
www.galactanet.com...

What if universes could touch and share, it could possibly explain every oddity ever known, every ghost, supernatural, weird sky falls, strange behavior changes, schizophrenia, missing people and items, odd animal behavior,found odd items, sightings of unknown animals, things in the sky, miracles....

OR
Could perhaps the masons checked floor be a hint?

Voila: Shadow galaxy, and, a shadow universe with, shadow life made of dark matter!
As hypothesized by Susan Randall of Harvard University and MIT, maybe it can be found in a shadow universe where, presumably, shadow doppelgangers (just like us, but made of dark matter) ponder the nature of the universe.

We may be sitting right on top of a shadowverse complete with dark stars, dark planets, and dark life. Harvard University theorist Lisa Randall and her colleagues say that giving dark matter a life of its own would explain away some of the weirdness that scientists don't understand about the properties of dark matter. Of course, this theory opens up a whole new realm of weirdness.

cosmology.com...

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
There seems to be a problem in that there can be no proof either way atm.

Yes, but I find it quite hypocritical that proof seems to work one way only on these threads and believers, like the OP, completely disregard our evidence but calls his 'residual'. Double standards.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
What if universes could touch and share, it could possibly explain every oddity ever known, every ghost, supernatural, weird sky falls, strange behavior changes, schizophrenia, missing people and items, odd animal behavior,found odd items, sightings of unknown animals, things in the sky, miracles....

It could explain it if we had proof of it, but bubble universes -as much as I'd love them to be true- they are still only an idea, there isn't any proof they actually exist. There are many discussions for and against it, but they are just that, ideas, no evidence of parallel universes at all at this moment in time.