Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

originally posted by: jaeart
I respect the people who believe in the so-called Mandela Effect but something tells me that all of you guys cannot be so special to switch timelines and collectively remember the same facts from another timeline. Something is special when it's rare.

I also thought the heart was on the left, so did my father and brother. Did we all switch timelines and by chance we all kept the memories of certain things? No. It's a misconception.

You have a narrow view of the possible reasons, we simply don't have enough information yet as to why we have had changes I have a feeling the changes may be all day every day, when you look around and can't find something where you thought you put it and then find it somewhere else for instance. Thing of all of the tiny things we put down to forgetfulness and just not paying attention.

I thought that restaurant had a blue sign, guess I was mistaken...

Who knows, ignorance is shutting down the questioning even before a person thinks.

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: neutronflux
The heart has moved? Very confusing? So, if the heart in this time line is more center chested than what you remember form you time line, the heart in this timeline still has never moved. It's always been center chested. (Find CPR training that teaches otherwise.) You don't like it, go back to your own time line?

I'm a nurse. The whole heart and kidneys ME thing is bunk. As is the rest of it. I find it laughable, honestly.

How this thread is a dozen pages long is beyond me.

Made so long by the many who think the thread should not even exist that is the laughable part!

a reply to: Jonjonj

Thank you. I realize that many here do not believe in the ME, and that's OK...I know it is very real, and that eventually we will get answers...and it is more than probable that we will not want to accept those answers. However, while we wait for the whole picture to be revealed, it is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be sucked in to the habit of obsessing over every little thing that we perceive to be a possible Effect...which is precisely what seems to be happening in a lot of cases...including, in my opinion, this one.

We're genetically hardwired to reason, hypothesize and extrapolate, and that is absolutely crucial for our continued survival as a species...however it also is one of our greatest weaknesses, because we often allow our emotional side to govern our ability to think critically, despite our rational side telling us that we need to remain objective and calm. That can very easily devolve into paranoia and obsession, and transform us quickly into fear and instinct-driven animals rather than rational, thinking beings...and that isn't a state of mind anyone can sustain for very long and still function in their daily lives.

I am happy that my words got through...they came from the heart...no matter what its anatomical position may be inside my body.

a reply to: Agartha

So are the kidneys still in the same spot as the OP pointed out? This is the claim I responded to.

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

I am glad you are annoyed by it. It wasn't invented by teenagers though.

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 always said that it can't be proven and didn't make any absolute statements. You are passing of your opinion as fact.

How do you know that movie confused most people who think it is "Luke". You can't know this, you are just assuming this.

It sure didn't confuse me.

You support your argument with gut feelings

Yes,partly. So why do you act like I pass this of as fact whenI was very clear about it.

and you talk about 'this timeline' like there are others timelines (here).

Yes, spoken from the perspective of the ME theory. I was simply pointing out that his argument against the ME was invalid.

I didn't say that other timelines or shifts exist. I pointed out that if they exist then naturally things would have always been like they are right now for those who didn't shift.

There is quite a diffrence between this and the absolute conclusions you are drawing.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

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.

He replied to a post and asked a question that wasn't relevant to that post. This is not proper protocol tsurfer. As usual your post didn't apply either.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

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.

He replied to a post and asked a question that wasn't relevant to that post. This is not proper protocol tsurfer. As usual your post didn't apply either.

Perhaps my response would have been considered a faux-pas in whatever timeline you're from, but here it isn't.

However, your willingness to deflect and obfuscate with such nonsense is noted.

a reply to: Greggers

So it is normal practise to reply to any random post and ask any random question? I don't think so.

Be careful what you wish for. ME is all about being reprogrammed and using the flawed memories to mark the persons that are repurposed. If I was going to invade, I would want the populace to have erroneous medical and geographical knowledge. Soften them up with the concept ME makes them more perceptive to bend the will when the recall goes out.

How would random time line jumping from infinite time lines result in a collective mind of shared flawed memories at a specific point in time.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

So it is normal practise to reply to any random post and ask any random question? I don't think so.

That is not what I did. As I have explained already in two previous posts, I quoted your post NOT because the entire thread of your exchange was relevant to my question, but rather because it gave me an "in" to ask you why you preferred the theory discussed over an alternate theory with ample scientific evidence.

Are you going to require me to explain this to you a fourth time?

Like I said, if this is considered a faux-pas in your timeline, I can only tell you that here in this timeline, it's perfectly acceptable.

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason you deflected and obfuscated with that line of nonsense for so long is because you literally had no cogent response to the questions I was asking. But now that we're a page or two past my summary posts that clarified all my questions (which you promptly ignored), here you are again.

Perhaps you could entertain us all with a few more pages of who was speaking to whom.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Be careful what you wish for. ME is all about being reprogrammed and using the flawed memories to mark the persons that are repurposed. If I was going to invade, I would want the populace to have erroneous medical and geographical knowledge. Soften them up with the concept ME makes them more perceptive to bend the will when the recall goes out.

How would random time line jumping from infinite time lines result in a collective mind of shared flawed memories at a specific point in time.

It's pretty clear ME is caused by MK-Ultra mind programming. Anyone can see that.

a reply to: violet

It isn't actually in the center, either...and this is likely the primary source of the confusion. It is nestled into the notch that was designed for it, plainly visible in any of these diagrams, slightly to the left of the mediastinum, or the vertical midline of the body delineated by the spine in the back and marked by the xyphoid process extending from the sternum in the front.

There is a "cutout" (again, 100% visible in diagrams) specifically designed for it, in the lower aspect of the left lung. The reason for this slight deviation is that the heart is a 3D object that is constantly moving with every squeeze, and the heart is angled in such a way that it facilitates the expansion of the muscle when filled with blood, so it needs a space to be able to do that efficiently.

The cardiac notch is that space. It makes a nest that the heart is secured by, of soft, pliable tissue that allows the heart to expand and contract freely while keeping it insulated from damage.

The heart is neither totally in the left chest, nor is it directly in the center. It is angled into its notch almost diagonally, where the largest point of expansion, as it fills with blood and prepares to pump it into the arteries, is nestled and expands, just like a balloon, in all directions. If it were located directly in the center, it would not be able to fully expand, because there would be no room for it to do so...and if it were located fully in the left chest, it would completely occlude the left lung, which is not typically compatible with human life. The cardiac notch solves both of those problems.

People tend to look at flat images of the anatomy and translate them incorrectly because they forget that the body is not a flat plane. This is extremely common. An excellent example of this is when people fix their hair in the mirror. Often, they work elaborately on the front, because that's what they see in the mirror...but they neglect to look at the back of their hair to make sure it matches, because they forget that when other people see them, they see them from all angles rather than the flat frontal image.

So, if you show a person a 3D image of the inside of a human body, they can actually see why our organs are positioned where they are...they're able to see the structure and function past what is discernible in a flat image. Those diagrams are also not all drawn by the same artist, and that is the reason for discrepancies among the varied depictions.

The human heart, which is roughly the size and approximate shape of a closed fist when it's not beating, is located slightly to the left of the midline, and beats at an angle, expanding the "balloon" of its structure backward into the space created for it, toward the spine rather than toward the bony, unyielding prominence of the sternum. It is technically both in the middle and left chest at the same time, but the largest part of it is nestled into and slightly behind the left lung, safely behind the medial aspect of the left ribs, while the rest of it is firmly attached at the midline behind the sternum...it cannot beat properly without being anchored there, to support its sizeable expansion at the apex of every squeeze into the chest cavity. It is a pump, not a ticking clock mechanism, so it rocks back and forth with that pumping action.

a reply to: Greggers

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason you deflected and obfuscated with that line of nonsense for so long is because you literally had no cogent response to the questions I was asking.

What questions?

You asked if I favored the ME theory over bad memory. You just agreed the answer was already perfectly clear, and now you are acting like I had trouble thinking of an answer for a redundant question?

You are obviously full of it.

Perhaps you could entertain us all with a few more pages of who was speaking to whom.

if people follow proper protocol and don't randomly reply to posts asking random questions or take conversations out of context I wouldn't have to point out all the flaws in the progression of a debate.

Why didn't you simply ask me the question instead of connecting it to a post it had nothing to do with?

originally posted by: Krneki
Why are u making a new thread about things that have been thoroughly discussed in previous ME threads...

It's about time someone makes self-autopsy and send videos, so we can compare the organ layout with old dead bodies laying around in some dusty depo shelves of some med university...

Oh, are you volunteering to die and have your autopsy filmed for our perusal then? And where are are these old, dusty dead bodies on shelves located for our correlation study? Have you ever seen a preserved body with organs intact? We're supposed to be denying ignorance here, not perpetuating it.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

He replied to a post and asked a question that wasn't relevant to that post.

It may not seem relevant to you, but to the person asking the question it could be.

This is not proper protocol tsurfer. As usual your post didn't apply either.

You do understand your opinion only matters to you.

As for protocol...what exactly is it?

I know what protocols are...but I would like to see the one we are supposedly not properly following, can you show that?

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

I would hope that you are not trying to imply that my post was written for some agenda, and further implying that my personal position on the location of the organs in the human body has ever been anything different. I have maintained throughout the numerous threads about the ME (most of which I have declined to join into, actually) that not only have the organs not changed positions, both sides of the argument...particularly with regard to the placement of the human heart...are claiming things that simply are not accurate.

I am not in any way refuting the ME by pointing out that the organ placement is being woefully misinterpreted by almost every single poster from both sides of the argument. As I clearly and concisely stated, I have experienced plenty of these effects myself, and that is still the case. However, I am adult enough to recognize and admit that some of them really, truly were simply my faulty recollection...or lack of knowledge about them in the first place.

I suppose it does not occur to most people that emotionally losing your head over something and insisting that every single discrepancy in past recollection is due to a timeline shift or any of the other implausible theories about the cause of the ME without the benefit of simple common sense and reasoning only serves to make them appear irrational and unhinged, and casts doubt upon the veracity of everything else that they claim. But I can assure you, as an ME "experiencer" myself, that this is true even to me. However, rather than attack and harangue people for voicing their concern and confusion, I prefer to refrain from douchebaggery and calmly state why I do not agree with a particular ME claim, which is exactly what I did.

Anything else taken away from that is nothing more than a product of the imagination.

a reply to: Aedaeum

No one likes having their comfort zone threatened. It is innate human behavior to vehemently deny at all costs those things which pose such a psychological threat. That vehemence translates, more often than not, to anger, mockery and derision. It is a defense mechanism and we all employ it at one time or another. It is simply the way our brains are wired...we fear the most what we are unable to explain away, and when the explanation doesn't fit, we go on the attack.

What questions?

These questions (from the previous post, which you stomped and whined about for two pages in an attempt to obfuscate):

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.

You never addressed any of that (except to whine about how I phrased the question ORIGINALLY), which offers all the proof I need that you have nothing to say on the matter. You could have simply said so and saved us both a lot of time.

AND this question, from another previous post, which you finally answered after a long, protracted teeth-pulling session. You make dentists proud everywhere.

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).

Even your answer to that was BS, but at least you did answer it. EVENTUALLY.

You asked if I favored the ME theory over bad memory.

I'm not even counting that question, which I had to ask you 5 or 6 times because you kept deflecting. I had to actually answer it FOR you as a prelude to getting to my real questions, and the only reason I did that was because you had already started your routine of deflection by this point. Instead of answering my initial question, you went on and on about how it wasn't relevant. It was relevant then and it is now.

You are obviously full of it.

It's not my fault you're so insecure in your arguments that you have to feign outrage and indignation over perfectly reasonable questions.

if people follow proper protocol and don't randomly reply to posts asking random questions or take conversations out of context I wouldn't have to point out all the flaws in the progression of a debate.

Since I didn't "randomy reply to posts asking random questions or take converstions out of context," it would seem you're finally admitting you've been behaving irrationally. If not, I'm not sure why you would comment as you have, since I've already explained 3 times (and offered to do so a fourth) why my question was not random, why I quoted your post, and why it was relevant.

Are you asperger's by any chance? You seem to be highly fixated on making sure conversations advance according to your own rules. That type of highly prescriptive behavior isn't going to work on the internet.

Why didn't you simply ask me the question instead of connecting it to a post it had nothing to do with?

Because the post I quoted illustrated how you were entertaining an idea which I had a direct counter argument to. AND NOW it's been explained a FOURTH TIME.

It's really too bad you insisted on wasting so much dialog before finally admitting you have absolutely nothing.

a reply to: raymundoko

The hand is placed in that manner because the largest expansion point of the heart is located inside a small cutout in the left lung, very slightly left of and posterior to the blade of the sternum. The acoustics that you call vibrations produce the "beat" that tells our ears that a heart is pumping blood. You cannot, for instance, hear the heart "beat" during cardiothoracic surgeries in which the chest has been cracked. It simply sounds like a rhythmic wet squishing.

The reason the sternum is used as a guide is because it is a) the closest outward marker of the mediastinum, and b) the location where the heart is anchored. The part of the heart that moves and flops around with every arterial squeeze is located behind and to the left of that point...the body's left, not the person who is facing them. You place the edge of the heel of the palm over the lateral sternal border, where the heart is anchored, and then the rest of the palm covers the amount of the heart that is located slightly left of it. The hand is not lying flat...it is curved, following the natural curve of the chest due to the barrel shape of the ribcage.

If you've ever seen a cardiologist, you'll know that they listen to the heart via stethoscope by placing the bell on the sternum, the left and right chest immediately to either side, then the upper left chest, then under the left nipple line, then below the the left axillary, then the lower left ribcage, then the dorsal aspect of the left chest from the back. Why the left? Because that's where it can be heard, due to the predominately left-sided placement of the heart.

You are attempting to debunk something that you quite obviously do not fully grasp the nature of yourself. The human heart is not dead center in the chest. It is also not wholly located in the left chest. It straddles both areas, with the largest expansion occurring predominately in the left chest cavity.

If you're going to correct someone, at least be correct yourself when you do. Otherwise, as is the case here, you are only further compounding the confusion and perpetuating the argument. I personally am of the opinion that you simply want to be "right", regardless of how truly uneducated you show yourself to be with the things you say. Well, then show some integrity of character and take the time to actually BE right.

Giving false information to refute a claim only reinforces the belief that the claim is actually accurate...because when people do not know something and are too intellectually lazy to bother checking, they fabricate the parts that they do not actually know. This is precisely what you are doing here.

a reply to: tigertatzen

You just said exactly what I said...only longer. You kind of look weird right now...

edit: english isn't your first language if I remember correctly? Flat against can mean completely touching each other, it doesn't have to mean straight when used in such a way. An example would be two people standing flat against each other. Obviously that isn't straight as the body has plenty of curves. The point was clear in my post, if the palm isn't on the sternum the middle of your hand would be off the chest due to the dip between pecs and sternum. I clearly state that.

The Palm rests on the sternum and the remainder of the hand over the left side of your chest so that the hand can be flat against the chest to feel the vibrations caused by the hear beat. If you don't do this, half your hand is off the body.

And later about the same picture:

With context we see the doctor is using his palm, resting on the sternum, to feel the heart. The picture indicates that the sternum is almost directly over the heart.

I know you have an axe to grind, but you just look pathetic right now. Still mad from other threads? You literally just agreed with my post...I simply used simple terms because these people are simple people.

You posted a lot of unneeded explanation for the picture in an attempt to look smart, but nothing you said disagreed with what I said. Have fun being angry you special x-man! It's quite comical as it always has been.

Solving the Mandela Effect with pure logic and an open mind...

So, what is the Mandela Effect?

- A glitch, malfunctioning, or fault.

What is causing this glitch, malfunctioning, or fault?

- 80% Possibility: The brains of the subjects.

• 50% : They have faulty memory
  
• 20%: They make it up on purpose
  
• 10%: They are victims of a mass mind control conspiracy
  

- 20% Possibility: Our universe, or reality.

• 9% : Our universe came to existence as result of a random quantum level phenomenon together with other universes. Collision of these universes or people randomly jumping from one universe to the other causes glitches in the memories of the subjects.
  
• 9% : We are living in a reality created by advanced beings but not by an omnipotent God. Therefore, there might be glitches in the system.
  
• 2%: God created our reality and these glitches have a purpose. They are not a malfunctioning in the system but a part of God's plan although no possible reason comes to mind for such a plan.
  

According to my logic (which I think is fair), out of all possibilities, the most PROBABLE cause of the Mandela Effect is faulty memory of the subjects.

On the other hand, if we entertain the lesser possibility of a glitch in our reality, it is interesting that the idea of an omnipotent God becomes very unlikely because the universe created by a God isn't supposed to malfunction.

Percentages might change as more evidence is found.