The Mandela Effect: Real or Ridiculous?

a reply to: fromtheskydown

wish you all the best with your health. (Hopefully, if we are indeed upgrading and making it to a better dimension there is a chance we can repair ourselves)

regarding the pulse location..the position i always felt my pulse what slightly down the center of the wrist like the picture i posted :



Please note i did the red circle to indicate location.

The location now is like this picture :



if you check the anatomy there is no way you can feel the pulse in this reality in the old location, so can you please elaborate further on these other wrist locations?

Some background about the my experience with my pulse location. A year ago I was working on a software which connects through bluetooth to a heart beat sensor chip. I was manually counting and comparing results and I put my fingers like always slightly down the center. Also this chip to have a reading I had to put it exactly where the red circle in the picture I posted is. Now no matter how much I try in that location there is nothing that can be felt.

Do you still feel the pulse in that location (slightly down the center of the wrist , the location my red circle is indicating) ?

ridiculous stop this crap

originally posted by: Agartha

Awaiting impatiently for the next Mandela thread titled:

'Gene Wilder died years ago! PROOF! '


'Gene Wilder died years ago! PROOF! '

I actually did think he had died some time ago. I probably confabulated that with his then-wife Gilda Radnor who died in 1989.

a reply to: humanoidlord


negative

but you can just un-follow this topic

what u guys think?

removed.

a reply to: heineken

Hello and thanks for the well-wishes.

This is the link...
Wrist Pulse

If I place my fingers more to the middle of the wrist, I can still feel a pulse, if I press hard enough.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

you are correct, im sensing a faint pulse if i press hard enough.

i still though im not convinced about the strength of the pulse (apart that the location is at the exact centre and not further down), from what i remember , the pulse located slightly down from the center was very strong and prominent, the location of choice from everybody.

now it looks the prominent location of choice is



do you always remember thing like they are now ? thanks

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h


Well my vote is very ridiculous especially since it is a nonsensical theory made up by Fiona Broome because she thought Mandela died in the 80's.

What I find even more ridiculous is the fact she is now marketing the phrase to sell on shirts...

mandelaeffect.com...

mandelaeffect.com...

So I think it is just a way for a ghost hunter...and that is what the lady who coined the phrase really is...to make money.

The first links were broken so I used these...nothing better when you can make money on a made up false memory.

I think you nailed it, personally. Amazing that no-one dug into her history after your post. It's laughable that so many are caught up in this fiasco and giving her weird theories air.

As stated in many threads about this, a faulty memory combined with confirmation bias and stubborn people.

a reply to: superman2012

How unfortunate that you are unable to share in this experience.

The problem I have with a lot of examples of the Mandela Effect is that they are quotes from pop culture icons, which can change slightly when we reference them so they're easier to recognize.

The best example I can think of for this is Darth Vader's line, "No, I am your father." By itself, the line doesn't link to the movie. But changed to, "Luke, I am your father," people spot the reference to that scene in Star Wars. It's not a conscious change; we're just efficient at communicating with one another.

And I remember always being taught that the pulse was at the outside of the wrist. Maybe people think it's in the middle because that's where our veins are visible? Veins have a lower blood pressure than arteries, though, so they don't work as well for taking someone's pulse.

The Mandela Effect is fun to argue with, because it makes you question why we misremember things. I'm glad it's floating around.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There's a couple of big ones, like 6 people in the car with JFK instead of 4, I mean I'm not exactly new to conspiracy theories, I shouldn't be misremembering one of the most important moments in the realm of conspiracy theories.

There still are, and always have been, six people in JFK's limo. JFK and Jackie (rear seats), John and Nelly Connolly (middle seats), and the two Secret Service agents up front (including the driver).

What happened is that during the early 1990s, people got used to seeing the headshot sequence from the Zapruder film cropped into a tight close-up like this. Reason being, Oliver Stone's movie had just acquainted a new generation with the JFK controversy, and used the Zapruder film in a close-up sequence in his courtroom scene.

In fact, what the Zapruder film shows (same frame as above) is this. And actually, that's a close-up too, because the actual Zapruder film may have been taken from a perfect position, but Abe Zapruder wasn't a very good cameraman and the whole frame looks like this.

So yeah. What you got is a generation of noobs who only remembered the Z-film close-ups from the Stone movie, then later came across the original and said "Woah man, this film used to look completely different!"

And the stupid thing is, this is checkable by absolutely anyone. Not only is the original Z-film readily available online, but if you look at the version supposedly showing just four people in the limo, you'll notice that there isn't anyone driving it. Because the driver, who is at the right of the image, has been cropped out.

This is typical of the sort of fact-checking that lies behind Mandela Effect claims. Half-witted mistakes by people who haven't been paying attention, which are then passed around by people who have never bothered to look into it for themselves. It's embarrassing horse5h1t.

Seems like a silly theory at first glance and I'm sure many examples are from a bad memory.

But the basis for the theory is the multi-timeline/universe theory and there is some hard core science to support it.

So, no, it not utterly ridiculous for people to think they were in a different timeline.

As for me, even before this theory was developed, I somehow knew I lived this life (as opposed to a past life) before. Too many cases of deja vu, coincidences and premonitions. So for me, it's not what's different but what's the same?

originally posted by: Daughter2
Seems like a silly theory at first glance and I'm sure many examples are from a bad memory.

But the basis for the theory is the multi-timeline/universe theory and there is some hard core science to support it.

Hahaha, the only science that sheds any light on the Mandela Effect is neuroscience.

The very idea that there is hardcore science to support timelines changing is laughable.
I would love to see it, but any theory on the Mandela Effect which includes changing timelines is as scientific, and as vague as a horoscope.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Gosh, there's plenty around....just read any theory about multi universes. It's late, so a quick google search pulled this up from space.com www.space.com...

"And last but not least as the idea of parallel universes. To go back to the idea that space-time is flat, the number of possible particle configurations in multiple universes would be limited to 10^10^122 distinct possibilities, to be exact. So, with an infinite number of cosmic patches, the particle arrangements within them must repeat — infinitely many times over. This means there are infinitely many "parallel universes": cosmic patches exactly the same as ours (containing someone exactly like you), as well as patches that differ by just one particle's position, patches that differ by two particles' positions, and so on down to patches that are totally different from ours."

Here's another one:
www.forbes.com...

There are also plenty of technical articles about multi universes - just don't have them now but they are out there - but it's a common theory in physics.

a reply to: Daughter2

So because there is science which leads to the possibility of the multiverse that means we are skipping between dimensions?

There is no reason to link these 2 very separate ideas.

a reply to: Daughter2

So, no, it not utterly ridiculous for people to think they were in a different timeline.

I do have to admit that Everett-Wheeler himself (the man who came up with the "Many Worlds" interpretation) found consolation in it because he thought it meant he would be immortal. Because he believed that his consciousness would always follow the branching of the universe that led to his survival. So even if he died in one branch, he would respawn along another. So you're definitely not alone in thinking that.

But I think Everett-Wheeler was talking pish, because his idea of surviving by switching branches would mean that (in the "branchiverse" he was switching to) there was an "empty" Everett-Wheeler waiting to receive his mind. Which is a baffling idea, what about everyone else in that branchiverse?

(I've heard it argued that E-W meant that copies of himself would survive his death in his "home" branchiverse. But that's not survival at all, is it. You're still dead, even if an exact copy of you exists somewhere else.)

Frankly, I think the whole "Many Worlds" interpretation is at worst total nonsense and at best a very vague and over-complicated way to think about a quantum phenomenon that will turn out to be far, far simpler.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: Daughter2

So, no, it not utterly ridiculous for people to think they were in a different timeline.

I do have to admit that Everett-Wheeler himself (the man who came up with the "Many Worlds" interpretation) found consolation in it because he thought it meant he would be immortal. Because he believed that his consciousness would always follow the branching of the universe that led to his survival. So even if he died in one branch, he would respawn along another. So you're definitely not alone in thinking that.

But I think Everett-Wheeler was talking pish, because his idea of surviving by switching branches would mean that (in the "branchiverse" he was switching to) there was an "empty" Everett-Wheeler waiting to receive his mind. Which is a baffling idea, what about everyone else in that branchiverse?

(I've heard it argued that E-W meant that copies of himself would survive his death in his "home" branchiverse. But that's not survival at all, is it. You're still dead, even if an exact copy of you exists somewhere else.)

Frankly, I think the whole "Many Worlds" interpretation is at worst total nonsense and at best a very vague and over-complicated way to think about a quantum phenomenon that will turn out to be far, far simpler.

Although it is a long stretch to say the least I theorised that the Mandela effect was the result of jumping into a different reality to avoid death.

It seemed at the time that a lot of folks who had it had suffered NDE's and I pondered the thought that jumping to a similar bit marginally different timeline could be the last ditch fight or flight attemt to avoid death.

I thought this after I was nearly hit in the head with a scaffolding pole and afterards there was a house next to the site I was working on that I swear was not there before the near accident.

Implausable I agree but a fun thought if nothing else.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Hi!

I did not read all the replies to you but i did read your OP. I take it for granted that you have already been called a special snowflake with a faulty memory looking for attention, so i will not have to emphasize that more than what i just wrote.

Mandela effect is both, real and ridiculous. It depends on the viewpoint. If one has not felt any changes, and is reading about ME stuff and timelines shifting and alternate dimensions and CERN being a satanic hell-machine behind all of this, it is ridiculous. But when it hits you, when you feel the change, and by feeling i mean not just remembering something was somehow different in the past, but knowing it by heart and gut, and then it has changed, it is very, very real.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: Daughter2

So, no, it not utterly ridiculous for people to think they were in a different timeline.

I do have to admit that Everett-Wheeler himself (the man who came up with the "Many Worlds" interpretation) found consolation in it because he thought it meant he would be immortal. Because he believed that his consciousness would always follow the branching of the universe that led to his survival. So even if he died in one branch, he would respawn along another. So you're definitely not alone in thinking that.

Once again, these are in no way connected.

If the Mandela Effect were true it would go against all the science which has lead us to the ideas of the multiverse in the first place.

Using mutiverses to prove ME's is silly, at the very best it would disprove multiverses.