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.

 

The Mandolia Effect

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: rothanwalker

Thanks for the response.

The most obvious "relic of old medicine" would be people's ring finger. It's that finger on the left because they thought it was directly linked to the heart.

As for the nurses and yourself. The cost of being wrong for either of you is extremely small. A heart surgeon is a different matter. I haven't studied biology but I like to think the exam questions are a little more in depth than which side the heart is on. In fact you could be clear evidence that to succeed in your studies it's irrelevant.

Did you do much study of bio mechanics?
I've done none, however if we moved the heart to the left, lowered the kidneys and enlarged the shoulder blades wouldn't we be a noticably different animal?

You are right, it's a very uncomfortable feeling. That's the reason why this is so popular.
But we should focus less on feelings with this one and look for the most plausible answer otherwise this just turns into a religious debate.

I could be terrified of the Mandela Effect and I'm grasping at straws to keep my weak grasp on reality. I don't think that's the case, however of course I would say that. I'm happy to have my bias pointed out however if we stick to facts our motives are irrelevant.




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Interesting. I've never heard of the ring finger being directly linked to the heart. I think without having heard it that would pretty much eliminate it as a possibility for me specifically being "mistaken" about the heart location. Seems like more of a cutesy kind of idea rather than a relic of old medicine anyways. Not to mention... I think mistaking the heart location would be very difficult just by the very fact that you can hear it and see it beating! I mean its not like we need to depend on diagrams to see where it is... all we have to do is feel around!

In addition, there is no way that this theory could explain my vivid memories of seeing and feeling my heartbeat on the left side. How would those memories possibly exist if my heart was at my sternum? I can remember once a few years ago my wife was lying with her head at the old location and after about 30 seconds said "sorry I have to move your heart is driving me crazy!" and moved her head DOWN towards the current heart location where the sound of my heartbeat no longer was so prominent that it bothered her.



As for the nurses and yourself. The cost of being wrong for either of you is extremely small. A heart surgeon is a different matter.


Heart surgery involves a team of people and lots of prep. When they start doing prep someone is going to correct the another if they start making a mistake and drawing and incision line in the incorrect place. If the actual surgeon then notices the incision lines are not where he expects them he is probably going to freak out a little but try to not show it and reschedule the surgery to try to give him some time to figure stuff out. At least that is what I would imagine. No way a surgeon goes in cutting if something is off. So for something like that to happen the entire team would have to have false memories and the "change" would have to have happened suddenly and at the same time for the entire team.




I haven't studied biology but I like to think the exam questions are a little more in depth than which side the heart is on. In fact you could be clear evidence that to succeed in your studies it's irrelevant.


I certainly don't remember any specific question asking "which side is the heart located?" lol
Questions were generally more complex in a college setting, but there were often diagrams that involved multiple different organs/systems, including the heart, interacting with each other. I feel it would be impossible that I would never have noticed the heart being in the center as opposed to on the left. I specifically remember one test or quiz about the circulatory system, including the pulmonary circulation (deals with lungs and oxygenating the blood) where the heart and lungs and organs were all on the same diagram (similar to this). We had to draw arrows to show the path of the blood and write out what was occurring at various points along the diagram. In having to show where blood was going from heart to lung back to heart and then through the body it would definitely be evident that the heart was in the center rather than on the left. During such an exercise I would definitely notice the heart location if it was not where I expected it to be.

NOTE: in looking through diagrams to find something close to what I remember for that exercise I realized that the heart was being depicted much larger than I remember as well. I remember the heart being about the size of my fist (I actually did this comparison with a cadaver and his heart was just barely larger than my first). The heart now, though is the size of TWO fists... crazy!



Did you do much study of bio mechanics? I've done none, however if we moved the heart to the left, lowered the kidneys and enlarged the shoulder blades wouldn't we be a noticably different animal?


As for biomechanics my senior research was related to biomechanics (more detailed below), but I just got the basics in general anatomy/physiology. Movement and such is all based on skeleton and skeletal muscles. So to answer your question... no moving internal organs would not really cause any major noticeable differences (besides a visible heartbeat) that would be visible from the outside or any difference whatsoever in movement.

Shoulder blade change (they are actually smaller now and more bladelike... they USED to be bigger and more squarish) would be and is noticeable if you were attentive enough to notice what they looked like before and take a look now. My wife definitely has a very different looking back because of her tiny little shoulder blades lol. Also I used to be able to stick my shoulder blades out and protrude them like wings and I can't do that nearly as much as I could- possibly just because of the size difference, but probably also because of a difference in skeletal muscle connections. Also the muscle memory that I know how to do it has changed, supporting the idea that skeletal muscle interaction with the shoulder blades is different. Now when I flex the muscles and move my shoulders how I used to to protrude my shoulder blades nothing happens my back just flexes. I can still protrude them just a little but I have to fiddle with it to get it to work when I used to be able to do it on command. Imagine it like you know how flex your bicep but all of a sudden that familiar flex no longer does what you remember it doing. That's the best way I can try to describe it.

I did my senior research on approximating bite force in spotted skunks and mongoose and similar animals based on certain measurements on their skulls and attempting to predict the differences in force based on their diet (my hypothesis that stronger bite force would correlate with "harder" diet for each respective species ended up being totally wrong btw lol). Just looked up various skulls of these species and they also have the bone behind the eyes which was definitely not how the skulls looked when I was taking measurements. The landmarks for the measurements are all in the correct spots, but the skulls look very different because of that bone behind the eyes. So I am glad you asked that question and caused me to look up the skunk skulls and notice another difference (sometime later I'm going to see if I can track down the images on an old computer but I am afraid it might have all been saved on the department's laptop).

Btw THANK YOU! It is refreshing talking to someone who is trying to be skeptical but also trying to be open minded about this either way. Most of the skeptics I talk to are more interested in being right than they are in discovering the truth. All these guys talk about the scientific method and blah blah and present their hypothesis but science doesn't work when you come up with a hypothesis and you force your data to fit it. That is BAD science. I am glad you are not that kind of person (or at least you don't seem to be based on our limited interaction). For me I am sure that there have been changes because I have been so sure on the (former) anatomy that its just plain to see it. If someone suggests an explanation I listen, I just am very doubtful that there is a logical explanation that doesn't involve reality changing or some sort of hive mind/psyop type of thing.

(sorry for such a long response!)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Interesting. I've never heard of the ring finger being directly linked to the heart. I think without having heard it that would pretty much eliminate it as a possibility for me specifically being "mistaken" about the heart location.


Of course you would think that. You were unaware of the influence that society played on your thinking.

I appreciate the long response, however you just come back to "I'm sure I'm right".

Find a heart surgeon who remembers it on the left and I will surrender happily.
My explanation is poor and full of holes, but interestingly it is better than any ME explanation.

I'm not claiming intelligence, all I've got is acceptance of my ignorance.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Of course you would think that. You were unaware of the influence that society played on your thinking.


...I'm not even sure what this means. Me never having heard anything about the left ring finger being connected to the heart verifies that that is what caused me to think the heart is on the left? I must be understanding you.

Yes, I just come back to I'm sure I am right because of all the reasons I listed. Did you read them? Do you disagree with the validity of those points? Are the specific memories of my heartbeat on the left just imagined? Any answer for ANY of the points that I made? Maybe it is just because you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, but it seems like you are just choosing to dismiss what I think is very compelling evidence that it is very unlikely that this would be a mistake (much less that somehow my "false" memories are "more correct" than actual anatomy, as your main hypothesis would claim). Rather than discuss it point by point you just outright reject it with no real reasoning. Is this cognitive dissonance at work? In the face of compelling evidence you choose to brush it off because thinking about what it might mean is too uncomfortable?



My explanation is poor and full of holes


Yes... it is, especially in this case of anatomy changes... so why do you choose to stick by it when it makes no sense to explain how people might be seeing these changes? Just because ME explanations can't be proven doesn't mean that your theory is better by default. It just doesn't make sense for this case.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: rothanwalker

It just means that there are a lot of things which which we are influenced by that we don't realise.

Regarding the heart again, why is it that if you look through all the medical evidence for the heart on the left it has "changed". However if you look at cartoon representations it's still on the left.

Surely the Mandela Effect should change both it there was any truth to it.

But if you want to address each one point by point I can do that. I just don't think there is much value as you don't seem to realise that your memory isn't stored. It's recreated every time you recall something. I'm "sure" I remember reading "Berenstein" I have a specific memory of it yet it's obvious that I'm wrong.




In addition, there is no way that this theory could explain my vivid memories of seeing and feeling my heartbeat on the left side. How would those memories possibly exist if my heart was at my sternum? I can remember once a few years ago my wife was lying with her head at the old location and after about 30 seconds said "sorry I have to move your heart is driving me crazy!" and moved her head DOWN towards the current heart location where the sound of my heartbeat no longer was so prominent that it bothered her.


Those memories don't "exist", as I said earlier they are recreated every time. This is why eyewitness testimony is so poor. But even if this isn't a case of your recall being effected by misinformation there could still be other answers. Perhaps your wife was hearing her own heartbeat (sometimes when my head is positioned on a pillow I hear it and it's annoying), assumed it was yours and when she moved her head position the problem was solved. Perhaps there is just noisier sides to the heart.



Heart surgery involves a team of people and lots of prep. When they start doing prep someone is going to correct the another if they start making a mistake and drawing and incision line in the incorrect place. If the actual surgeon then notices the incision lines are not where he expects them he is probably going to freak out a little but try to not show it and reschedule the surgery to try to give him some time to figure stuff out. At least that is what I would imagine. No way a surgeon goes in cutting if something is off. So for something like that to happen the entire team would have to have false memories and the "change" would have to have happened suddenly and at the same time for the entire team.


You said "At least that's what I would imagine".
So you have managed to establish that your view of where the heart is has been completely irrelevant for you. People who need to know, somehow do. Can you show an example where someone who needed to know, didn't?



I feel it would be impossible that I would never have noticed the heart being in the center as opposed to on the left. I specifically remember one test or quiz about the circulatory system, including the pulmonary circulation (deals with lungs and oxygenating the blood) where the heart and lungs and organs were all on the same diagram (similar to this). We had to draw arrows to show the path of the blood and write out what was occurring at various points along the diagram. In having to show where blood was going from heart to lung back to heart and then through the body it would definitely be evident that the heart was in the center rather than on the left. During such an exercise I would definitely notice the heart location if it was not where I expected it to be.


That diagram isn't evidence that veins are much larger than they are. All this shows is that diagrams are made for clarity and not for realism. The artist probably made the same mistake.



So to answer your question... no moving internal organs would not really cause any major noticeable differences (besides a visible heartbeat) that would be visible from the outside or any difference whatsoever in movement.


Well my question included enlarging the shoulder blades and you seemed to avoid that part. You discussed the shoulder blades but once again it just went back to your memories and the assumption that you couldn't possibly be wrong.



I did my senior research on approximating bite force in spotted skunks and mongoose and similar animals based on certain measurements on their skulls and attempting to predict the differences in force based on their diet (my hypothesis that stronger bite force would correlate with "harder" diet for each respective species ended up being totally wrong btw lol). Just looked up various skulls of these species and they also have the bone behind the eyes which was definitely not how the skulls looked when I was taking measurements. The landmarks for the measurements are all in the correct spots, but the skulls look very different because of that bone behind the eyes.


How would the bone behind the eye impact bite force?
Is this just another case of your misunderstanding being irrelevant?



If someone suggests an explanation I listen, I just am very doubtful that there is a logical explanation that doesn't involve reality changing or some sort of hive mind/psyop type of thing.


Think of the energies and complexities required to change reality. Now think of the evidence you have when you remove your memories from the equation. The most logical explanation is that you (just like me) remembers incorrectly.

Are all the people that experience the same ME's proof of reality changing or just proof that common people make common mistakes? There's more to learn from asking why we think things then assuming what we think is always correct and the world is changing around us.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Alright, you win. Everything is bad memory. You can believe that if you want to. I just don't have the energy to go back and revisit and restate when I know you are going to find a way to illogically (IMO) dismiss anything I say. You are forcing square pegs into round holes but that doesn't mean you are correct. It is clear to me that you are really not open minded about this and to be honest that is totally fine and understandable. If you want to just feel better about it because the alternatives are scary, then that is your prerogative. I hope you can resolve this with yourself. God bless.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
It is clear to me that you are really not open minded about this and to be honest that is totally fine and understandable. If you want to just feel better about it because the alternatives are scary, then that is your prerogative. I hope you can resolve this with yourself. God bless.


I was more open minded about this then I started looking into how our memories work and the answer became clear. There's only 2 options... Memory is wrong or Reality is wrong. I do notice that consistently those pushing for reality being wrong haven't looked too much into brain science.

As for the alternative being scary? I see it as trying to explain that a magic trick is just a trick, and you're telling me that I'm too scared to believe David Copperfield can really fly. I don't mean that as an insult, just trying to explain where my bias lies. How could I regain true open mindedness and investigate this free of my own bias?

I'm trying to be logical, I would be very happy for you to point out where I'm failing in that regard.

Just another tidbit, I looked a little further into the heart and our left lung is actually smaller than our right lung causing our heart to lean a little to the left. I can incorporate that new information easily into my theory, my goal is to find information that I can't incorporate and therefore prove myself wrong.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




How could I regain true open mindedness and investigate this free of my own bias?


I'm not sure that you can to be honest. Just do your best to understand that some things are NOT logical because there are too many things that we do not understand. We don't have the whole picture or all of the pieces at this point, so obviously its not going to make sense at first.

For me to continue on here with you would be an exercise in futility. Luckily my goal is not to persuade you, so I am not going to devote my time towards trying to do so when you have admitted that you aren't open minded to the possibilities (and for the record I have looked into memory and such quite a bit).

Peace and thank you for the conversation.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: rothanwalker
No problems. It's the same way every ME conversation ends.

Both sides equally incapable of understanding the alternate point of view. We may as well be discussing Palestine.

I guess I'll keep looking for the Heart Surgeon that remembers the heart on the left. I'm just a little disappointed that those who believe reality is changing around them don't have a way to falsify their theory (Always a good sign of a bad theory).

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




I'm just a little disappointed that those who believe reality is changing around them don't have a way to falsify their theory (Always a good sign of a bad theory).


So if we didn't have microscopes would the hypothesis that microscopic organisms exist and affect us and our environment be a bad hypothesis? In terms of a scientific theory, yes, it would not be accepted because scientific theories MUST be falsifiable by definition. That doesn't mean that the hypothesis is wrong just because we lack the understanding or the ability to actually measure or observe something.

All I am doing is making observations that I and many others recognize differences between our memories and reality and that these differences are near impossible to be exactly the same for thousands of people who have never met each other.

While I do understand your behavior, I still can't help but be a little disappointed that someone who is claiming to be open minded can't accept the idea that it is possible that we as humans don't know or have the capability to measure or observe everything.

I don't blame you. Cognitive dissonance is very real and powerful and I totally understand. I have seen the exact same behavior face to face with people as they try to reduce the dissonance. Its totally cool and I hold nothing against you for your stance. Have a good day!



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


I'm just a little disappointed that those who believe reality is changing around them don't have a way to falsify their theory (Always a good sign of a bad theory).


So if we didn't have microscopes would the hypothesis that microscopic organisms exist and affect us and our environment be a bad hypothesis?


Not at all, surely microscopic organisms were realised prior to the microscope.
Put 50 healthy people in a room with 50 plague sufferers, if the healthy people stay healthy then you have disproven microscopic organisms.

The strength of the hypothesis relies on it's falsifiability.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
All I am doing is making observations that I and many others recognize differences between our memories and reality and that these differences are near impossible to be exactly the same for thousands of people who have never met each other.


That's a little dishonest, we are both making observations. And both of our observations are exactly the same.



While I do understand your behavior, I still can't help but be a little disappointed that someone who is claiming to be open minded can't accept the idea that it is possible that we as humans don't know or have the capability to measure or observe everything.


Previously you said I had admitted being closed minded. I agree 100%, we are incapable of measuring everything, however we both observe ME's. Therefore we have the capability to measure and observe something.



I don't blame you. Cognitive dissonance is very real and powerful and I totally understand. I have seen the exact same behavior face to face with people as they try to reduce the dissonance. Its totally cool and I hold nothing against you for your stance. Have a good day!


I appreciate your understanding.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Put 50 healthy people in a room with 50 plague sufferers, if the healthy people stay healthy then you have disproven microscopic organisms


That is absolutely incorrect. Without understanding or having the capability to observe or measure microorganisms there is no way you can make that conclusion. It is anyone's guess why the healthy stay healthy or why the sick get sick.

Hell... even WITH modern understanding your example doesn't falsify the hypothesis because antibodies and vaccines or genetics could be keeping them healthy, depending on the specific microorganism. You are being influenced by modern knowledge and making assumptions that can't be made without the ability to observe or measure microorganisms. Disease was certainly somewhat understood, but not on a microscopic level.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Previously you said I had admitted being closed minded.


Read it carefully:




It is clear to me that you are really not open minded about this


Does it say anywhere in there that you admittedto being closed minded?




we are incapable of measuring everything, however we both observe ME's. Therefore we have the capability to measure and observe something.


Yes, but we are specifically talking about the underlying reason for how something is happening... I do not present any hypothesis about how or why these things are happening, just that they are. That how/why is what we are specifically discussing here. Can we measure/observe parallel dimensions, alternate timelines, that we are in a simulation, that God or some all powerful being is making changes to reality? No? K that is what we are talking about and you understand that.

It seems like you are intentionally twisting my words or presenting feigned misunderstanding of what we are discussing. Is this the case? Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any real point to continuing here. Hope that you are well.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

... when you have admitted that you aren't open minded to the possibilities (and for the record I have looked into memory and such quite a bit).



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker

Yes, but we are specifically talking about the underlying reason for how something is happening... I do not present any hypothesis about how or why these things are happening, just that they are. That how/why is what we are specifically discussing here. Can we measure/observe parallel dimensions, alternate timelines, that we are in a simulation, that God or some all powerful being is making changes to reality? No? K that is what we are talking about and you understand that.

That's dishonest. You are putting a hypothesis forward.
The "something" that we want underlying reasons to is "Why do we think the heart was on the left".

My hypothesis is that it's a silly mind trick (a side effect of a highly efficient brain) and that's why we think it.

Your hypothesis is that it's because of a possible mixture of parallel dimensions, timelines, simulations, god or an infinite realm of possible answers. At the very least your hypothesis excludes mine.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

... when you have admitted that you aren't open minded to the possibilities (and for the record I have looked into memory and such quite a bit).


Ok you got me there. So lets clear it up. Are you or are you not open minded?
edit on 28-12-2016 by rothanwalker because: quote formatting



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Your hypothesis is that it's because of a possible mixture of parallel dimensions, timelines, simulations, god or an infinite realm of possible answers. At the very least your hypothesis excludes mine.


So my hypothesis is that something is causing them lol. Ok you got me... what a hypothesis! I should write a paper on it! That would be an awful scientific hypothesis. Even if we could measure/observe all of those things there would be way too many variables to even test it. So no, I am not presenting any hypotheses. I am speculating about possibilities, but I am not saying that they are correct or currently testable.

IF I were presenting a hypothesis it would exclude bad memory because I think the evidence of thousands having the exact same incorrect memory is nearly impossible, especially concerning all of the specific differences in anatomy. I am not being dishonest in the slightest... at times I may be mistaken, but I am not being intentionally dishonest. I am getting the feeling that you are being dishonest, though, or you are just not as knowledgeable on the subject as you are presenting yourself to be.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: rothanwalker
IF I were presenting a hypothesis it would exclude bad memory because I think the evidence of thousands having the exact same incorrect memory is nearly impossible, especially concerning all of the specific differences in anatomy. I am not being dishonest in the slightest... at times I may be mistaken, but I am not being intentionally dishonest.

See that's what confuses me. If we stick to the heart on the left.

There's current medical reasons to assume it's on the left with the smaller left lung and the lean.
There's relics of bad medicine regarding the heart being linked to the left ring finger in our everyday society.
There's constant enforcement of the left heart with cartoons all the way to showing respect for your anthem.

Those alone should at least make you question whether your knowledge of heart placement "may" have been negatively influenced along with billions of others (it's definitely not thousands).

But I think that's the issue here. I think you've skipped a step, and you think I've refused to move a step or vice versa (we're both to blame). Strangely we both use the multitude of cases as enforcement for our position too.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

K just for argument sake lets ignore the heart. What would be common reasons for confusion that currently lungs are smaller, higher, and differently shaped than memory? That currently the liver is much larger than memory? That the stomach is farther off to the left than memory? That the intestines start much higher than memory? That the sternum is much longer than memory? That the kidneys are much higher than in memory? I can go on and on. Thousands of people share these exact memories.

You really think all of these mistakes would coincidentally be exactly the same? If so you are going to have to find some compelling evidence for each example and then once you do, if you do, I'll list more differences for you to explain.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join