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

Mandela Effect - Hitler's eyes were brown!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: MacSen191

Off topic but still interesting.... I sort of understand how he gained that power. If you poke into the right studies its sadly easily explained. Its how Napoleon (and the whole French Revoloution, where many leaders wore worse than the Nobility) and other leaders, kept power. In Adolf's case the depression and the way Germany got screwed over at the end of WW1 helped. Its an interesting idea but the 1919 flu epidemic actually was a cause of a lot of this, because Woodrow Wilson was ill at hte peace accords, and did not moderate France or England. All this built up over the years, to meaning you had a dissatisfied populace, and well Hitler spoke to their baser side.

We see all this today, Greece and the Golden Dawn anyone? Brexit? etc

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:15 AM
a reply to: Liquesence

seems to be no end to this crap about Hitler and the nazis ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................barely a few months go by without it being dragged up or ,oh no not another Movie about it ................................

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: Noinden

I've never even seen a colour picture of Hitler.

I get what you're saying. I still wonder if there could be something to this whole situation.

Have anyone here experienced the Mandela effect in a more blatant way? Like maybe some relative dying and then being alive. That would be closer to home and harder for the memory to twist.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 07:33 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Thats the point. Color pictures of Adolf are not that common, at least quality ones. It would be like saying "I've never seen a hologram of Michael Jackson" twenty years from now. When you are used to a technology, you forget its not always been that way.

Another example is hearing how a word is actually pronounced vs how you think it was. As a chemist, I know how to pronounce the chemical names but many people don't. Imagine a Mandella effect where someone says "I remember it was ibo-proo-fen, something has changed". Its eye-bew-proh-fən (ibuprofen), but if you think of it a certain way for a long time, you have trouble changing.

Most Mandela effect "memories" are of famous folks dying and then being alive or vica versa . Obviously Mandela is one, Freddie Mercury is another. All of those instances are people not actually knowing, or poor memory. But a person you knew intimately, being alive (or dead) when they were dead (or alive)... how does one "prove" that? That is the problem with memory.

If you are interested in fiction based around the Mandela effect, try reading the House of M comics.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: Noinden

I hear you.

There's really no way to prove any of this..

Not much into comics, I like Deadpool though.. been trying to read some of the stuff but I keep getting distracted.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:03 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I bring up house of M, because the premise is basically "one day the world changed and only two people notice." It is an Xmen comic, and I think Deadpool is inthere some where....

As for the Mandela effect, the reason I doubt it, is so many people claim to notice it. Its a really crappy "change in reality" if its noticed by "everyman and his dog"

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:15 PM
a reply to: Noinden

Shouldn't that make it more credible though? Imagine if millions of people started talking about the Mandela effect.

I mean the idea that a change in reality becomes more credible the less people that notice it seems kind of arbitrary as a rule. You based that on that Marvel comic didn't you? *Accusatory*

If only two people had noticed the Mandela Effect none of us would have even heard about it, which probably means we've experienced dozens of similar reality changes without noticing. Kind of boring.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

No it should not be more credible. IF it were a change to the time line, merging or parallel worlds, or similar mystical hand waving things .... you should only have a discrete (small) portion of the populace notice it. IF it were a gross part of the population it would be even more noticeable.

The problem here is not "hey the Nazi's won the war, wtf" it is "Nelson Mandella died in the 80s...right?" and "NO its not the Berenstain Bears its the Berenstein Bears".

BOTH of those examples (the exemplars for this form of confabulation) are explained away by (a)Faulty memory and/or (b) Bad spelling.

The only reason the Mandela effect is getting any traction is the near instant communications that the world wide web provides. Where before you would have had to publish a book or magazine article (say in Nexus or New Dawn), have people actually read that work. You can now go on social media, and post an idea.

Slenderman is an example. Its a known manufactured conspiracy. Yet people by it hook, line and sinker.

When you look at the originator of the idea (Fiona Broome) she is trying to make a name for herself in the paranormal and new age worlds.

Now as for Marvel? Nah if I was to blame anything it would be the TV series Sliders. Also I'm both a scientist (meaning I will dig for data) and an occultist (meaning I'm open to odd stuff).

In all seriousness, you can explain this away using Occams Razor and Hitchens Razor.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:36 PM
And sadly.. I sort of can't get past the skin of Deadpool.. I like him but it freaks me out, I feel sorry for him.

I'm always just thinking: well, the Marvel universe is completely filled with thousands of bizarre characters with ridiculously powerful powers, why can't Deadpool just find one of those dudes that can completely rearrange reality and fix his skin?

Apparently Odin "compressed the population of an entire planet into a single being" like it was nothing. And he's not even one of the most powerful characters. He's just "galactic level".. j u s t galactic level.

And that's pretty much my biggest problem with Marvel. There's too many ridiculously powerful characters with almost no end to their power. It's a little bit like Goku throwing around galaxies(I hear, haven't seen it), I'm somewhat intrigued by the mythology and comparing all these characters like kids asking their parents which animal would win in a fight, but it's also a little bit too immature for my taste. Don't know if immature is the right word though. Possibly too unrealistic too..

But hey, that's taste.. some people only like fiction that's based on reality or hard science fiction. Me, I only like 40k because I chose long ago that I could only get invested in one fictional universe and I already liked it so the choice was natural. It was a choice I made so I wouldn't waste too much time not studying.. I had to diligently study the world and its inhabitants, this was the mission I was given.

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

So look at the comics, and fictional universes you've mentioned. It is almost always a small few who notice something is wrong.

So to bring this back to Adolf's ocular genetics (eye colour). What would different eye colour mean? Was he still an antisemetic murderous mad man? Seems so. So a different eye colour is what? Different genetic rules? So same genes, but different result? Most people bring this up I feel to try and imply "perhaps hitler was Aryan blah blah blah". Missing the point the Aryans were a Persian Tribe. Not only that, the correct term that the Nazi's should have used is Indo-European. Many of the people they picked on were .... um Indo-European. Oops. So much for "genetic superiority". Also what they saw as superior was cultural not genetic. ANYONE can be German if born, and brought up that way. Similarly Jewish is a religion (thus cultural) and you could take the "perfect blue eyed, blond haired (which means genetically recessive ... just saying) Aryan child and raise them as a Jew, and lo they would be the inferior. Genetics means nothing when its not to do with physical things in the Human body,

As for 40 K.... In the Emperors name, let none survive .... etc

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: Noinden

In this hypothetical scenario I think it would mean that his genes expressed themselves in slightly different way. But I hardly know enough about genetics to speak about this.

But that Persian tribe was white. Iranian Aryans still practice endogamy and they're whiter than other Iranians.

Indo-European is not really a racial category though, at the time of the Nazis Aryan was. And it still is, sort of.. just surrounded by a whole lot of confusion.

The non white Indo-Europeans may share similarities with white Indo-European cultures but this is most likely because these people in one way or another inherited some of the culture of the ancient Aryans whom they later assimilated. To some extent this seems to have happened.

It's somewhat taboo to even speak about though, what with the white history of colonisation anyone mentioning ancient Aryans as some kind of conquering tribe would most likely be called a racist. The Nazis did a lot of damage to white people. It's unfortunate that most people do not know that white people haven't just been stuck in Europe for all this time.. they were all over the ancient world, from Persia to Egypt, India and even China. And that's just known history, the possibility of advanced Antediluvian civilisations is all but a certainty in my mind, there's too many holes in the mainstream consensus.

Have to disagree here. Anyone can be a German culturally, they would not be a German racially though. That gene pool is unique as is all others, pretending like it doesn't exist or that it's completely inconsequential is dishonest. I don't believe in the idea that I become Japanese or Kenyan simply by moving there, and I imagine Kenyan and Japanese people would agree. Too relativistic for me, Westerners are the only ones that embrace this type of relativism.

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 03:27 AM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Neighbour there is no such thing as race when you look at genetics! The differences around to thousandths if a percent. Oneof my degrees is in bioinformatics specifically genomics.

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 05:43 AM
a reply to: Noinden

Needless to say I don't believe you.

Racial differences like these are real, therefore races are real. Arguments beyond that are mostly pedantic and semantic.

posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 03:02 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

You don't have to believe me neighbor. Your ignorance of the facts is your own problem.

However you are calling the Finns a race now? Based on a daily mail article. Way to pick your sources of information

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:30 AM
Hitler in my world had blue eyes.

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: Noinden

But you aren't refuting anything I say.

Finns have a unique gene pool as do other groupings.

The facts? The facts are different gene pools display different characteristics, differences in testosterone levels, differences in resistance to diseases, differences in muscle type, differences in skin colour, differences in morphology, this list could go on for quite a while.

This gene referenced in the article is just ONE GENE and still still its influence is tangible.

This belief in the non existence of races amounts to nothing but a stunning display in doublethink. The differences are there for all to see. Are you gonna tell me the sky is green next?

posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 11:15 PM
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

The generic differences between the so called races are about 1 hundredth if a percent. Further there are more differences within the so called racial groups than between them! Lastly most "racial markers" are in non coding portions if the genome: this means they produce no physical differences.

I am at home looking after my pregnant wife on a tablet. I will find references tomorrow

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:01 AM
a reply to: Noinden

Chinese geneticists disagree, they haven't been poisoned by the dogma of egalitarianism.

So, in this situation where disagreeing with the postmodern dogma of equality will get you harassed and even fired from your job you think people haven't been conditioned?

Racial differences are evident and also supported by science. You can quote scientists, I can quote scientists.

The generic differences between the so called races are about 1 hundredth if a percent.

Yeah and humans and chimpanzees are about 98.8% similar genetically. Again, one gene is enough to make a person more prone to violence when under the influence.

This guy clearly disagrees with your position.

Richard Dawkins too:

He goes on to disagree with Lewontin's conclusions about taxonomy, writing, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

The argument that there are no clear demarcations between races is like arguing that yellow isn't distinct from blue because they're both part of a spectrum of colour.

Like it or not but these arguments that these geneticists are making that ordinary people are repeating are based more on political expediency than anything else. Clearly not everyone agrees with their conclusions, the only difference is one is politically expedient and even popular, the other one is taboo.

Other arguments that fall short are mainly semantic: races are not a real taxonomic classification. Which ignores the colloquial nature and use of the word race. If you want to be pedantic we can call them subspecies, which is a word even an article critical of the idea of race used. The point is, racial differences are real even if they fall short of the taxonomical classification.

edit on 6-9-2016 by TheLaughingGod because: Apparently I can't post a specific link..

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 04:04 AM
The ''Nazi '' ''Hitler '' industry is never ending ,either there is something in the media about it ,every month or so,the news ,a new movie every few years ,its like it has to be kept in the Publics mind all the time ,how often to you hear about Stalin and Communism ,Mao ,Polpot and all the millions of ''Their own people'' they slaughtered, NEVER ! Bobbie Fishers mother was jewish ,making him a jew, and he hated jews with a passion ! what colour were his eyes ,the same as Hitlers ?

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 08:08 AM
I have to say, I've never been in the slightest doubt that Hitler's eyes were blue.

For as long as I've been aware of him, he's always had blue eyes.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in