The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: raymundoko

Edit to add? never heard that before. Thanks! I was wondering why she kept saying theres an ETA, but using it as it would mean "Edit". Got me seriously confused.
so thanks.

a reply to: tigertatzen

ETA in any other context means something entirely different. And since ive never seen ETA used in any other context - I was confused with the way you were using it. Since Ive never seen anyone using ETA for an "edit" before.
But its sorted now.

Ah, as in "estimated time of arrival"? My bad, sorry. I completely forgot it had that universal meaning too.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

No there hasn't. You are confused.

Posting an image or link to something and then saying "this has changed" is not physical evidence. It's taking something physical and attaching it to a false memory. It's using a logical fallacy to support another logical fallacy.

Well, that's your opinion. I happen to have a differing one. Such is life.

a reply to: tigertatzen

yeah. ETA has always meant estimated time of arrival.
you are the only one ive ever seen use ETA in any other way than that.

by the way you should really go back two pages and edit your posts that are left cryptic.
the edit function is still there since it hasnt been enough time for the edit function to go away.
thats just an advice, but i suggest you do edit them so as to not look like your trolling cause thats what it looks like - . -

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: tigertatzen

I remember you having the same "thing" happening on another comment, few days ago. It was also a reply to me.
That is fu**ing scary man.
Really.

edit:
what does ETA mean? I always thought it was something entirely different, and never seen it used the way you use it, so im curious as to what it means.

It's happening to other people too, and not just on this site either. I just try to ignore it and keep going but it's becoming more frequent.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Which site? I could investigate the code. Since its all PHP and HTML and im a PHP/HTML/CSS coder, its very familiar to me, so I can see whats causing it. I am sure however, that its not a problem in the code. But without looking, I cant prove it.

a reply to: tigertatzen

The definition of a continent precludes a mass of ice from being dubbed continent. Land must be involved.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

Yes, I realize that about the continents, but it was believed to have once had a land mass and because of its enormous size as well, it was classified as a continent.

On a funny note, my mother refused to believe that such a place existed. Even if you showed her a globe. She said it was mythical because Santa Claus was supposed to live there. That they just had to fill empty space on the globe so they made it up. She'll be pleased to hear that she's finally being at least partly vindicated after all these years.

a reply to: tigertatzen

The definition of physical evidence is only my opinion?

In this case going outside and saying "the sun is so hot I can barely stand it" is physical evidence based on the sun. It can be tested and duplicated. Then adding "but it used to not be this way" has now veered away from physical evidence to the abstract. No matter how much people want that to be physical evidence it is not.

This was posted previously but here it is again: Our memories are corruptable

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

Yes, I realize that about the continents, but it was believed to have once had a land mass and because of its enormous size as well, it was classified as a continent.

The Arctic has never been classified as a continent. Can you show me anywhere that says otherwise?

On a funny note, my mother refused to believe that such a place existed. Even if you showed her a globe. She said it was mythical because Santa Claus was supposed to live there. That they just had to fill empty space on the globe so they made it up. She'll be pleased to hear that she's finally being at least partly vindicated after all these years.

Sounds like my grandma lol.

I just thought of what the issue might have been.

ANTarctica.

See?

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: tigertatzen

Which site? I could investigate the code. Since its all PHP and HTML and im a PHP/HTML/CSS coder, its very familiar to me, so I can see whats causing it. I am sure however, that its not a problem in the code. But without looking, I cant prove it.

Facebook for one. For a long while now actually. I just dismissed it as some other glitch because they're constantly updating the mobile app. Gmail is another. Emails are disappearing. Also, text messages. And the U2U system here as well. The charting interface my husband uses for his patients as well...which is really bad because it's important medical data which the entire care plan hinges on.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Facebook will be a problem to investigate, as the 'public' code, i.e the code that I could look at - is just a shell.
But I dont understand. How can the same thing happening here be happening on facebook and on text messages?
There is no quote function like on ATS on either of those you mentioned.
So Im curious as to what you mean when you say the same thing is happening there as on here.
As I dont really see that being possible.
On here, you quoted me, but your response was hidden/deleted/gone.
How does that translate to facebook or sms ? Im very curious about this, and want to get to the bottom of it.
But first I must know what you mean fully, to be able to investigate it.
So please explain again, in more detail, what is happening on for example facebook and sms texts - that correlate to what happened here on ATS.

edit:
also, how come you cant go back and edit your posts?
The edit function is still there.

##snipped##

Please, let's get back to the substance of the thread, and stick with the most relevant & interesting information we can gather. Repetitive back & forth is sullying our investigations.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

Yes, I realize that about the continents, but it was believed to have once had a land mass and because of its enormous size as well, it was classified as a continent.

The Arctic has never been classified as a continent. Can you show me anywhere that says otherwise?

On a funny note, my mother refused to believe that such a place existed. Even if you showed her a globe. She said it was mythical because Santa Claus was supposed to live there. That they just had to fill empty space on the globe so they made it up. She'll be pleased to hear that she's finally being at least partly vindicated after all these years.

Sounds like my grandma lol.

I just thought of what the issue might have been.

ANTarctica.

See?

If I could show you, I would do it in a heartbeat. And yes lol I see what you did there!

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

Yes, I realize that about the continents, but it was believed to have once had a land mass and because of its enormous size as well, it was classified as a continent.

The Arctic has never been classified as a continent. Can you show me anywhere that says otherwise?

On a funny note, my mother refused to believe that such a place existed. Even if you showed her a globe. She said it was mythical because Santa Claus was supposed to live there. That they just had to fill empty space on the globe so they made it up. She'll be pleased to hear that she's finally being at least partly vindicated after all these years.

Sounds like my grandma lol.

I just thought of what the issue might have been.

ANTarctica.

See?

If I could show you, I would do it in a heartbeat. And yes lol I see what you did there!

Like I said, if it was ever a continent, it would have been a land mass. If it was a land mass it would have seriously screwed up any extrapolations of Pangea (amongst other things)

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So are you saying some members in the thread are "in on it" ? I dont understand what you mean ? :/

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: tigertatzen

Facebook will be a problem to investigate, as the 'public' code, i.e the code that I could look at - is just a shell.
But I dont understand. How can the same thing happening here be happening on facebook and on text messages?
There is no quote function like on ATS on either of those you mentioned.
So Im curious as to what you mean when you say the same thing is happening there as on here.
As I dont really see that being possible.
On here, you quoted me, but your response was hidden/deleted/gone.
How does that translate to facebook or sms ? Im very curious about this, and want to get to the bottom of it.
But first I must know what you mean fully, to be able to investigate it.
So please explain again, in more detail, what is happening on for example facebook and sms texts - that correlate to what happened here on ATS.

edit:
also, how come you cant go back and edit your posts?
The edit function is still there.

On facebook it's been posts disappearing, comments, etc. On Google it's been email. I own my own business, so I flag a lot of emails to track them, especially back and forth conversations. A lot of them have disappeared. I've also had several people think I'm ignoring them because I don't respond to their email. Well, it isbecause I never got it. But I believe they sent it.

I don't know why I can't edit those posts. On both, I tried to edit, as you can see. But when I hit the button to post, the edit does not show up. Only the quoted segment at the beginning. U2Us are disappearing or showing as opened when they have not been. There's an active thread about it. Other people are having this occur here too.

a reply to: alienDNA

Don't worry, I just think we need to be grounded in discussing potential theories, rather than falling into a trap of discussing a 'he said/ she said, it is/ it isn't' situation.

I'm not having any major geography issues after checking things out. The only thing is, I think I've seen flat and global misrepresentations occasionally which have shown South America as being further east. That stuck out for me. On my globe Aruba, off of a tip of northeastern Venezuela, is due south of Maine and almost in a straight line with Augusta, ME but not quite.

My globe I mentioned in an earlier post checks out for me. It's in my memory that the far eastern tip of Russia is close to the far western tip of North America with the Bering Straight, not very wide, between them. That must be a cool place to visit.

The Arctic Circle consists of the Arctic Ocean, ice, snow and some islands (plus the entrance to the inner earth, lol!). That's OK with me.

I already mentioned New Zealand and Australia are OK for me. They haven't backpacked anywhere recently in my memory. Someone was showing Australia, etc., on Google Earth on their YouTube channel and it looked as though Australia was ready to touch bases with Thailand and Cambodia. Very distorted placements.

Peace.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tigertatzen

Why would they call it Arctica? It's the Arctic and the other side of the earth is the Antarctic. That is why the continent down there is called Antarctica.

The Arctic and the Antarctic are polar regions. Antarctica is the land mass in the Antarctic.

Wait. Did you seriously just ask me why they would refer to a continent in the Arctic as "Arctica" while also pointing out that the land mass in the Antarctic, completely opposite it is called "Antarctica"? Did that actually happen just now? Did anyone else see this?

There's no continent (land mass) in the Arctic. That's why there is no "arctica".

There is a continent at the Antarctic. That's why there is an "Antarctica".

ETA: On a side note, ETA used in this context means "Edited To Add"

Right, I get that's not the case currently. But he asked me why they would call it that...a hypothetical in his case because he isn't experiencing the ME...and then proceeded to answer his own question as basis for asking it. That's what I was expressing incredulity about. Still am, actually.

But if you recall it as being called "arctica" that would mean there would have had to have been a land mass under the ice. If there was a land mass under the ice, it would mess up all know extrapolations of how the planet looked millions to billions of years ago.

No, like I said earlier, it was not believed to have an underlying land mass. It was a continent entirely made of ice. It was supposed to be uninhabitable. Not billions of years ago either...this was a social studies class.

You can't have a continent of ice. The definition of a continent is land.

And my point about millions to billions of years ago is related to Pangea.

Yes, I realize that about the continents, but it was believed to have once had a land mass and because of its enormous size as well, it was classified as a continent.

The Arctic has never been classified as a continent. Can you show me anywhere that says otherwise?

On a funny note, my mother refused to believe that such a place existed. Even if you showed her a globe. She said it was mythical because Santa Claus was supposed to live there. That they just had to fill empty space on the globe so they made it up. She'll be pleased to hear that she's finally being at least partly vindicated after all these years.

Sounds like my grandma lol.

I just thought of what the issue might have been.

ANTarctica.

See?

If I could show you, I would do it in a heartbeat. And yes lol I see what you did there!

Like I said, if it was ever a continent, it would have been a land mass. If it was a land mass it would have seriously screwed up any extrapolations of Pangea (amongst other things)

I understand that too.

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: tigertatzen

yeah. ETA has always meant estimated time of arrival.
you are the only one ive ever seen use ETA in any other way than that.

by the way you should really go back two pages and edit your posts that are left cryptic.
the edit function is still there since it hasnt been enough time for the edit function to go away.
thats just an advice, but i suggest you do edit them so as to not look like your trolling cause thats what it looks like - . -

I have tried several times to edit both posts. Anything I type will simply not show up at all. I tried four times with the first one and three with the second one. It simply will not show up. It won't allow me to delete the quote line either. It'll let me delete it out in the edit screen but the second I click the send button, it's back to being exactly the same as it is right now. Nothing I try works. The exact thing happened a few days ago, earlier in this thread.

If there are mods watching this thread, can you please just delete the two posts where my reply is not showing? I cannot edit them and have it actually go through. It's not purposeful. I don't know what else to do. Thank you.