Mandela Effect - All Airliner Engines Now In Front Of Wings

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
Having never been in 1st class

, do the seats in that area maybe face the other way thus making the engines appear to the rear

Some aircraft have rear-facing business class seats.

Not an airliner, but an example of a fairly old jet with very sticky out-front engines. A lovely old bird:

Convair Hustler

a reply to: Zaphod58

I already explained that it goes far beyond a simple mis-remembering. It's not just a singular memory, or a singular impression, but many, many memories of it being a certain way. For my life experience, it was never as depicted above.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Because, again, coming from another universe where everything, including aerodynamic rules are completely different makes so much more sense.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Great way to describe it - it's not just one memory - it's many combined over a life-time of experience.

I don't know if aerodynamics changed, they may have designed the wing differently to accommodate the engine under it - but you might know more about what's changed than I do.


All I know is I've never seen an airliner with the engines in front of the wings like that - until a few days ago - and I've seen plenty from the window seat over the course of my life - and I should add - they've always been the way they are now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have no idea why this happens, how, or what it's all about. I don't believe I am from another dimension. It seems to me that this one goes through changes. But I have no answers. We come here to discuss these things, hoping to make some sense of it. I wish I understood it. I could easily lie or just say nothing, but I wanted to post for the sake of truth. What I've said is the truth, the reality that I'd experienced. As crazy as it may sound, the ME is a legitimate supernatural occurrence. It is certainly bizarre, but that's part of what's fascinating about it too. Hell, modern physics believes in other dimensions existing here and now. The world's smartest man, Stephen Hawking, believed. From your perspective it seems to be a little matter: does it not seem more probable that your memory (or perspective of reality over time) is faulty, rather than some kind of big, supernatural phenomenon? To us experiencers of the ME, it's a chain of very clear memories, not just one single memory, or a single or vague recollection. As well, there are so many of us who have alternate memories of things which have changed.

a reply to: Pearj

All I know about this case is that the design has changed, as you stated. They used to always be under the wings, and I assume there were practical reasons for that. With the Barenstein Bears, not only did the name of the books change, but the authors' surname. History itself changed (pertaining to the name, at least.) In this case, it seems the science around the design changed. Why these things are changing is the question. Are they changed so that we notice them, or are we not supposed to notice? It's beyond perplexing, but it's fascinating stuff

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

So instead of one bad memory you have several. Again, prefectly common. But instead of accepting it as just your memory being wrong, people have decided to accept that physics or science is changing for them specifically, and not everyone else.

Memory is extremely pliable and can fool you very easily. But since apparently people need the validation of being special, we have the Mandela Effect now. Sure, everything is changing just for certain people. That makes so much sense.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2


Hey - I remember when planes were biplanes. Now suddenly they are all monoplanes!

Must be Mandela Effect.

a reply to: Pearj

That's a good one.
Yet another one that works on me.

The aerodynamics argument clearly shows that the engines need to be further forward so the question needs to be... Why do we remember the engines being directly under the wing?

My explanation would be that like all Mandela Effects it's easier to remember.
Under the wing is easier than under and in front of the wing.

And once again it's not "bad" memory but a trivial side effect of our "great" memories.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2


Hey - I remember when planes were biplanes. Now suddenly they are all monoplanes!

Must be Mandela Effect.

And what happened to the propellers?

a reply to: roadgravel


Yes! I clearly remember that all planes had propellers but now the timeline has shifted and these jet things have suddenly appeared.

Don't tell me my memory is at fault, I clearly remember flying in a Bristol Britannia and that had props. Great big ones.

a reply to: Zaphod58

With The Berenstein/ain Bears, it goes beyond even having very vivid memories of my father pronouncing it "Berenstein" and me reading it as "Berenstein," over several years, and coming back to look them over for sentimental purposes in my teenage and adult years and visually seeing "Berenstein Bears," and seeing cartoons which were titled and pronounced "Berenstein." There were kids and adults who pronounced the name differently. Some said "Berenstain," others said "Berenstine," while many said "Berensteen." The reason why, as my father once explained to me, was that the wording confused people. The "-ein" could be pronounced in different ways, but the "een" pronunciation was the correct one. If it was spelled "-stain," no one would have been confused about how to pronounce it, much less many people. As well, I would have been making fun of the name as a kid. The Bears who "stain" their pants. Apparently, kids today do make fun of that, as I would have too. But in the youth that I experienced, they were always the "Berenstein Bears."

Also of interest is how so many of us remember it this way, not just differently. No one remembers "Berenstine" or "Bearinston." We all remember the same exact wording and pronunciation, crystal clear.

It's easy to write off someone's experience as easily explainable if you yourself have not experienced it. All I can do for you is to lay out my testimony and the facts. If it seems like too much of a stretch for you to accept, that's fine. But as I pointed out, even modern physics believes in alternate universes. To me, it's rather closed-minded to assert that no one is experiencing what they claim to experience, especially with so many other people with the same exact experience.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I was never that into airplane technology to have known much about such details. The only thing I'm personally aware of is that the engines were below the wings, not stuck out in front like canons lol

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

They're not facts though, they're experiences. That means it still ties back to memory. The human brain is a fascinating thing, and much more complex than most people realize. It's not just a matter of storing a memory and then you go back and access it. It's been shown several times that as time passes, events that you remember clearly change. Every time you remember something, it changes slightly. Those changes are then recorded as what really happened.

As for how many people have "experienced" the Mandela Effect, that also comes down to the brain. It's not uncommon for people to read something, or hear someone say something, and "remember" something similar, whether they did or not. It happens to everyone at some point in time.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

See, that's just it. You weren't aware of how aircraft were designed or the technology. So it makes sense to you that the engines would be under the wings instead of how they are.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

See, that's just it. You weren't aware of how aircraft were designed or the technology. So it makes sense to you that the engines would be under the wings instead of how they are.

Exactly.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

...Some people may never understand what you're (we're) saying - it may be a natural defense, the concept is potentially mind-breaking and scary..

I figure that's why they fixate on "alternate realities". It's the least likely, most dramatic principle, and therefore easiest to wish away using Occam's razor - however physics provides plausibility that leaves their favorite 'heel' lacking. Occam's razor is no substitute for lab work - or experience.

There's something incredible happening - and those that can grasp it are able to communicate about it - that's what matters.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Your post mentioning the Berenstain Bears and kids perhaps joking about the name, brings to mind the lack of that, the way I remember it (stein). It seems like too easy a play on words, for us to have avoided at that age, unless the majority then also thought it was Berenstein.

The multiverse idea comes up often, in these ME discussions, makes me wonder if thatthe idea is really so foreign. Perhaps it's just more challenging trying to imagine how it could work...

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I remember it as Berenstein myself. I also remember wondering if it was pronounced Stine or steen. If it was Berenstain, yes, kids would most definitely joke about the stain part. I have no theories on what is happening or why. I am never afraid to admit if my memory sucks as it does sometimes, but that one...to me, it was always Berenstein

I have no kkowlege of airplanes and how they work, so I can't comment on that.