Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

a reply to: Greggers

You are asking why I am pointing out the flaw in your statement? Because it is flawed perhaps?

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

You are asking why I am pointing out the flaw in your statement? Because it is flawed perhaps?

Where did you come up with that?

a reply to: Greggers

I understood you the first time. DO you favor ME over bad memory?

I dont think you did otherwise you wouldn't be asking me questions that are irelevant to that particular exchange.

a reply to: Greggers

Come up with what?

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

I understood you the first time. DO you favor ME over bad memory?

I dont think you did otherwise you wouldn't be asking me questions that are irelevant to that particular exchange.

You're very clearly trolling.

I understood you both the first time and the second time, and if you say it a third time, I will understand you then too.

I am now asking you a question.

Do you favor ME over bad memory?

a reply to: Greggers

You're very clearly trolling.

As opposed to you?

Do you favor ME over bad memory?

Why ask questions you already know the answer to, especially if it is not relevant in relation to the exchange you responded to?

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Come up with what?

That I'm asking you why you responded to my original statement. I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm trying to figure out if you now understand that:

1) It was not intended to be a literal interpretation of a complex physiological process. Given the computer terminology I worked into the description, one would think that would have been self-evident (as we are not cyborgs), but I believe I have made it clear now. Yes?

2) I explained what I wanted you to take away from the statement: That misinformation gathered later could effect memories created earlier. You get that, right?

3) I was asking if you had some point to make about those facts, or if you'd said everything you care to say on the matter already.

As opposed to you?

Yes. As opposed to me. I'm honestly just trying to get you to respond to the intended substance of my previous posts, but you seem very distracted by "who was talking to whom" and the context of other conversations which have nothing to do with what I am asking you. I quoted your previous post not because the entire exchange was relevant to what I was asking, but because it gave me an "in" to discuss the lack of empirical evidence for a theory you clearly favor over an alternate theory with abundant empirical evidence.

Why ask questions you already know the answer to, especially if it is not relevant in relation to the exchange you responded to?

Why not just answer the question?

Here, I'll answer for you, since you claim I already "know the answer." I assume if you would drop your guard for two seconds and just simply answer what I'm asking you, you'd say, "YES GREGGERS, I DO IN FACT FAVOR ME over bad memory."

RIght? Good, so let's just pretend that happened.

Now, I ask you again (after two wasted pages of back-and-forth nonsense), why do you favor a theory for which there is no evidence over a theory for which there is abundant evidence?

a reply to: Greggers

"YES GREGGERS, I DO IN FACT FAVOR ME over bad memory."

This was not completely clear from my activity in this thread alone? Jeez.

Now, I ask you again (after two wasted pages of back-and-forth nonsense), why do you favor a theory for which there is no evidence over a theory for which there is abundant evidence?

You asked this in response to my reply to Raymund, giving a speculative explanation about a question about a speculative theory.

The question wasn't about ME vs bad memory, so it doesn't apply at all.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

"YES GREGGERS, I DO IN FACT FAVOR ME over bad memory."

This was not completely clear from my activity in this thread alone? Jeez.

Now, I ask you again (after two wasted pages of back-and-forth nonsense), why do you favor a theory for which there is no evidence over a theory for which there is abundant evidence?

You asked this in response to my reply to Raymund, giving a speculative explanation about a question about a speculative theory.

The question wasn't about ME vs bad memory, so it doesn't apply at all.

I am asking you the same question NOW. It applies NOW. At this point, I can only assume you are unwilling to answer.

originally posted by: [post=21149350]TheMaxHeadroomIncident




This was not completely clear from my activity in this thread alone? Jeez.

Yes, it was. Which was why I was rather mystified (and continue to be so) about the way you reacted to the question. You keep complaining that my question pertains to your speculative answer about a speculative theory as if that has any bearing whatsoever on your ability to answer. It doesn't. So you really ought to just answer the question, yes?

In case you're still not clear on the question:

Why do you favor an explanation involving alternate timelines (which you've admitted has no empirical evidence to support it) over an explanation involving faulty memory (which has hundreds upon hundreds of supporting scientific studies).

That is the question I am asking you.

a reply to: Greggers

I don't care.

Well if you don't follow proper posting protocol then I can't be bothered to answer random questions either.

I don't see any evidence that these experiences are caused by bad memory. I only see evidence that bad memory is a real condition.

I already explained in detail why I entertain the ME theory, multiple times, so you are asking irrelevant and redundant questions no matter how you look at it.

originally posted by: [post=21149385]TheMaxHeadroomIncident
Well if you don't follow proper posting protocol then I can't be bothered to answer random questions either.

I didn't violate any unwritten rule of posting. As explained above, I quoted your previous post not because your entire exchange was relevant to my statement, but because it gave me an "in" to discuss the lack of empirical evidence for an explanation you clearly prefer over one that is well supported scientifically.

I don't see any evidence that these experiences are caused by bad memory. I only see evidence that bad memory is a real condition.

Yes. That's fair, to a point. Here is the evidence we have FOR the "faulty memory" hypothesis:

1) We have hundreds upon hundreds of studies that prove conclusively that misinformation digested later can CHANGE memories created earlier.
2) We have traceability back to hundreds of shared sociological events likely to have created false memories in a certain portion of the population.


And, conversely, here is the empirical proof we have in favor of "alternate universes:"


.... None.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Good grief........ you really like going 'round in circles, eh?
Well, there's not much else I can say to explain my point, and I'm sure you'll take this as a 'Max wins, Agartha loses'. LOL

Luckily this guy got it (he said liver instead of kidneys but there was no mention of liver in the OP so I'm sure that's just a typo):

originally posted by: Justoneman
The OP's pic he used, if right might mean that it had moved but it is indeed as one poster pointed out the small of the back just over the hips below the liver. Biology/Chemistry Double Major. Just a bad drawing not a moved liver from any Mandella affect IMHO!

Remember when you asked me why I thought you are really young? Because you constantly used this annoying teenage expression:

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

"........ Derp".

And then you said this to me:

You are again including statements you can't possibly support.

You? Who believe the Mandela effect is a real thing without anything to support you but feelings, is telling me I can't support my statements???

I have science to back me up, and others have posted many times before psychological studies that show the Mandela effect is probably bad memory and mass histeria.

You support your argument with gut feelings (here) and you talk about 'this timeline' like there are others timelines (here). What support do you have for your statements? No other universes/ dimensions or timelines have ever been discovered, so don't say I can't support my posts when you are doing exactly the same.

originally posted by: imjack
You would think different timelines would be vastly different and not spelling mistakes.

A butterflys wings can cause a tsunami and you're telling me that multiple converging timelines AT BEST have anatomy differences?

I was almost expecting different laws of physics or something idk. At the very least multiple anatomies and not a conspiracy that we just all 'forgot' it was different but all still have the same one.

we are not talking timelines.

There could be tiny little differences, maybe some were just spelling or name differences.
Read this and see just some of the possibilities.

We could even be experiencing and imperfect reflection of our own reality.

1. Infinite Universes

Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time.

So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you — in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices.

www.space.com...

Though it may sound like science fiction, if extra dimensions exist, they could explain why the universe is expanding faster than expected, and why gravity is weaker than the other forces of nature.

home.cern...
2
015
CERN experiment to test if we can connect to another dimension

But, Switzerland is still on the map, a testament of the skill with which the collider itself and those that operate it dabble with forces so powerful they could literally break space-time.

“Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions,” said Mir Faizal, one of the three physicists behind the experiment. “We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.”

www.zmescience.com...

"The Totally Unthinkable" --In 2016 CERN's LHC Could Unveil Unknown Dimensions of the Universe

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Switching between alternate timelines would not be so selective as to exclude brain structure, memory and chemistry but include every other bodily change.

The best of the best does not know this how do you know it?

a reply to: Agartha

At least we can prove that faulty memory, mass hysteria, and the "misinformation effect" are real things that exist in the physical world.

Which is why it baffles me that anyone would prefer a theory that invokes things which have not been proven.

Imagine a scenario in which you wake up one morning to find someone has spray-painted your car with graffiti. The "alternate timeline" explanation of ME would be akin to assuming the graffiti was put there by space aliens.

originally posted by: Greggers
I wonder if the whole Queen thing stems from this scene at the end of Revenge of the Nerds. We all saw it.

a reply to: Greggers

I didn't violate any unwritten rule of posting.

Actually you did...because anything that is posted that doesn't agree with the ME theory is a violation of the unwritten rule of Mandela Effect threads.

Hope that helps so that next time you don't violate the unwritten posting rules.

originally posted by: Greggers
At least we can prove that faulty memory, mass hysteria, and the "misinformation effect" are real things that exist in the physical world.

Which is why it baffles me that anyone would prefer a theory that invokes things which have not been proven.

Imagine a scenario in which you wake up one morning to find someone has spray-painted your car with graffiti. The "alternate timeline" explanation of ME would be akin to assuming the graffiti was put there by space aliens.

Exactly! We do have science to back us up, real science, not 'science' from fringe sites like the ones some post about CERN, for example.

ME is just like religion, it's a lot easier to fill the gaps with 'Goddidit' or 'MEdidit', because to actually study real science and being able to understand it, takes a lot more effort.