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

originally posted by: tweetie
Clyde Lewis is talking about the Mandela Effect tonight. His show just started in my area on AM radio. He said he did a show about it before but I never heard that one.

Edited to Add: His show began an hour ago but not on my station. His shows can be heard on the Internet and from his archives. Ground Zero Media.

I don't know who Clyde Lewis is...would there be a transcript later that is readable? I'm hearing impaired, so I can't really listen to things like that, but if it's transcripted, I can read it later.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

Ok. So at least you're acknowledging now that the heart is not in fact dead centre in the chest. That was all the entire conversation was about. The placement of the heart. Such a simple, minor thing blown completely out of proportion because someone who has been harassing every person in here and demanding that only factual proof be given said something that was anatomically incorrect while openly mocking another poster, and I corrected him. It's just "rediculous", don't you think?

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps we can go back to discussing the topic. I'm relieved to see that you don't actually believe the human heart is located in the centre of the chest. Particularly since every anatomical chart out there shows that is clearly not true, as well as easily accessible medical literature. Have a nice day, now.

Maybe 2 inches to the left "simulates electrical impulses"??

In any case I do believe that Tiger has stated anatomy hasn't changed.

I was my last companies voluntary safety coordinator and I had to take CPR training annually. I was also taught to do the compressions over the sternum to prevent breaking a rib.

My wife is certified in CPR/ECC as it makes her feel safer with a houseful of kids. She verified we were both trained the same way.

a reply to: 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
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

Ok. So at least you're acknowledging now that the heart is not in fact dead centre in the chest. That was all the entire conversation was about. The placement of the heart. Such a simple, minor thing blown completely out of proportion because someone who has been harassing every person in here and demanding that only factual proof be given said something that was anatomically incorrect while openly mocking another poster, and I corrected him. It's just "rediculous", don't you think?

The heart is more centered than it is to the left. Some people even have their hearts slightly to the right. That's why cor is done in the center.

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps we can go back to discussing the topic. I'm relieved to see that you don't actually believe the human heart is located in the centre of the chest. Particularly since every anatomical chart out there shows that is clearly not true, as well as easily accessible medical literature. Have a nice day, now.

So you're not going to show any proof of your cpr technique? I guess we'll chalk this up to laziness then.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Maybe 2 inches to the left "simulates electrical impulses"??

cpr doesn't (and can't) stimulate electrical impulses. It's literally there to pump the heart to keep blood (and in turn oxygen) flowing around the body.

In any case I do believe that Tiger has stated anatomy hasn't changed.

Maybe not stated, but certainly implied.

I was my last companies voluntary safety coordinator and I had to take CPR training annually. I was also taught to do the compressions over the sternum to prevent breaking a rib.

My wife is certified in CPR/ECC as it makes her feel safer with a houseful of kids. She verified we were both trained the same way.
a reply to: TerryDon79

The sternum is also the most flexible part of the chest. You can compress it quite a lot even with a gentle push. That's one of the many reasons it's done there.

I'm currently reading a discussion about how many states there are/were in the United States.

Mandela effect has removed 3 of my kids from this existence they just don't exist

There are three camps:

50 states, 51 states, 52 states

That goes way beyond "faulty memory"/"bad memory." It goes beyond "bad education" too.

Here's a conversation between devout Christians about how Bible verses have apparently suddenly changed:

The Mandela Effect changing SCRIPTURE!?!?!

These are the types of people who study the Bible every day. They're suddenly claiming that verses they know by heart from the King James version of the Bible have been apparently changed.

Here's a discussion about apparent changes in world geography:

The Mandela Effect On World Geography!

There are endless discussions on the Internet about all kinds of apparent changes such as the above.

The "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory is nearly impossible.

The "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory is reliant on making an assumption for every Mandela Effect by every person. It is not one assumption; it is a different assumption for each Mandela Effect. If a person has 100 Mandela Effects, "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory requires 100 separate assumptions.

Let's consider some alternate theories for how people could remember "Luke, I am your father" rather than "No, I am your father." We have many possible scenarios that explain why that could happen other than "bad memory" and "parallel universes."

1. There could be copies of the film out there that were censored in different ways. For instance, some governments edit things from films in order to allow them to be shown in their countries. It's conceivable that the word "No" could have been changed to "Luke."

2. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitle translations. Someone who's going by the subtitles only (not being able to understand the English) could understand "No" as "Luke."

3. There could be copies of the film out there with bad overdubbings in other languages. The word "No" may have been dubbed as "Luke."

4. George Lucas may have been up to his old tricks with editing. He could conceivably have edited some copies secretly.

5. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitles in English. Hearing impaired people could be reading "Luke" when it should read "No."

There are five more theories (outside of the alternate reality theory) that are also possible.

Those who want to claim "faulty memory"/"bad memory" for every Mandela Effect have to ignore all the other possibilities. That is pure confirmation bias all the way around.

I'm very aware it can't stimulate electrical impulses :-)

a reply to: TerryDon79

originally posted by: raymundoko
I'm very aware it can't stimulate electrical impulses :-)

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ah, ok. I can't tell sarcasm online sometimes lol.

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
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

Ok. So at least you're acknowledging now that the heart is not in fact dead centre in the chest. That was all the entire conversation was about. The placement of the heart. Such a simple, minor thing blown completely out of proportion because someone who has been harassing every person in here and demanding that only factual proof be given said something that was anatomically incorrect while openly mocking another poster, and I corrected him. It's just "rediculous", don't you think?

The heart is more centered than it is to the left. Some people even have their hearts slightly to the right. That's why cor is done in the center.

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps we can go back to discussing the topic. I'm relieved to see that you don't actually believe the human heart is located in the centre of the chest. Particularly since every anatomical chart out there shows that is clearly not true, as well as easily accessible medical literature. Have a nice day, now.

So you're not going to show any proof of your cpr technique? I guess we'll chalk this up to laziness then.

Chalk it up to whatever you like. But you're the one asking for proof when you quite obviously have the ability to look it up for yourself. If you want to call me lazy because you want your hand held, so be it. But if you can make it onto this forum and find the fortitude to post all these snarky, assumptive, convoluted...and dare I say "rediculous" attempts at baiting an argument, logic dictates that you are also capable of executing a simple Google search all by yourself as well. Good luck to you.

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
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

Ok. So at least you're acknowledging now that the heart is not in fact dead centre in the chest. That was all the entire conversation was about. The placement of the heart. Such a simple, minor thing blown completely out of proportion because someone who has been harassing every person in here and demanding that only factual proof be given said something that was anatomically incorrect while openly mocking another poster, and I corrected him. It's just "rediculous", don't you think?

The heart is more centered than it is to the left. Some people even have their hearts slightly to the right. That's why cor is done in the center.

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps we can go back to discussing the topic. I'm relieved to see that you don't actually believe the human heart is located in the centre of the chest. Particularly since every anatomical chart out there shows that is clearly not true, as well as easily accessible medical literature. Have a nice day, now.

So you're not going to show any proof of your cpr technique? I guess we'll chalk this up to laziness then.

Chalk it up to whatever you like. But you're the one asking for proof when you quite obviously have the ability to look it up for yourself. If you want to call me lazy because you want your hand held, so be it. But if you can make it onto this forum and find the fortitude to post all these snarky, assumptive, convoluted...and dare I say "rediculous" attempts at baiting an argument, logic dictates that you are also capable of executing a simple Google search all by yourself as well. Good luck to you.

It's not up to me to back up your claims lol.

Do you not know how claims and evidence work?

originally posted by: Profusion
I'm currently reading a discussion about how many states there are/were in the United States.

Mandela effect has removed 3 of my kids from this existence they just don't exist

There are three camps:

50 states, 51 states, 52 states

That goes way beyond "faulty memory"/"bad memory." It goes beyond "bad education" too.

Here's a conversation between devout Christians about how Bible verses have apparently suddenly changed:

The Mandela Effect changing SCRIPTURE!?!?!

These are the types of people who study the Bible every day. They're suddenly claiming that verses they know by heart from the King James version of the Bible have been apparently changed.

Here's a discussion about apparent changes in world geography:

The Mandela Effect On World Geography!

There are endless discussions on the Internet about all kinds of apparent changes such as the above.

The "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory is nearly impossible.

The "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory is reliant on making an assumption for every Mandela Effect by every person. It is not one assumption; it is a different assumption for each Mandela Effect. If a person has 100 Mandela Effects, "faulty memory"/"bad memory" theory requires 100 separate assumptions.

Let's consider some alternate theories for how people could remember "Luke, I am your father" rather than "No, I am your father." We have many possible scenarios that explain why that could happen other than "bad memory" and "parallel universes."

1. There could be copies of the film out there that were censored in different ways. For instance, some governments edit things from films in order to allow them to be shown in their countries. It's conceivable that the word "No" could have been changed to "Luke."

2. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitle translations. Someone who's going by the subtitles only (not being able to understand the English) could understand "No" as "Luke."

3. There could be copies of the film out there with bad overdubbings in other languages. The word "No" may have been dubbed as "Luke."

4. George Lucas may have been up to his old tricks with editing. He could conceivably have edited some copies secretly.

5. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitles in English. Hearing impaired people could be reading "Luke" when it should read "No."

There are five more theories (outside of the alternate reality theory) that are also possible.

Those who want to claim "faulty memory"/"bad memory" for every Mandela Effect have to ignore all the other possibilities. That is pure confirmation bias all the way around.

That's another one that hasn't affected me personally. I do know people who thought it was 51 states, but I think they were counting in DC, which isn't actually a state. And of course, that was long before this...years and years ago.

I don't have any reason to doubt those who say they remember more than fifty states simply because I myself do not, but I'd love to know what they were called. Were they territories that became states or was the entire geography different and there were actually states that are no longer here?

People have been saying that South America has been relocated. If that is actually true, perhaps it was simply due to "rearranging" once the extra states disappeared. The way that teeth will move around in the mouth after one is removed, to try and balance the deficit.

If actual physical reality was altered; geography was physically changed, once the catalyst had burned itself out and all was quiet along the resulting new timeline, would everything that was affected by it naturally start settling itself, naturally righting the imbalance that was created when those states' mass was removed?

If the missing states equate to an actual missing chunk of land mass from the North American continent, could the rest of the global geography possibly have shifted as a result of the imbalance created by that missing land?

If that actually happened, it might still be ongoing. Things might still be changing...like wakes in the water of a lake after a boat has made a sudden turn or acceleration. Other boats in the area will be displaced ever so slightly, over and over, until the motion of the water plays itself out. Just a thought that occurred to me. What do you think?

a reply to: tigertatzen

If that actually happened, it might still be ongoing. Things might still be changing...like wakes in the water of a lake after a boat has made a sudden turn or acceleration. Other boats in the area will be displaced ever so slightly, over and over, until the motion of the water plays itself out. Just a thought that occurred to me. What do you think?

I think not.
I quite well remember when the 50th state joined the Union. There have been none since.

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
a reply to: tigertatzen

Terry is pretty sure tiger was speaking about how cpr was different. Terry is really sure about it. Terry remembers that tiger was saying about the chest pumps being done of the left side. Terry thinks that that would imply that tiger would assume the heart is on the left orherwise what would be the pointing doing it on the left?

Is Terry reading tigers posts correctly?

No, Terry is apparently not reading them correctly. The heart is not on the left side of the body. It is slightly left of the mediastinum, which will be at least the fourth time I've said this. It is not dead center in the chest, therefore, the proper placement for CPR compressions is the left lateral aspect of the sternum. You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch. Perhaps Terry should slow down a bit with the sarcasm and go read it again. That would be my suggestion, anyway.

Um, if you compress the cardiac notch, you won't be compressing the sternum.

Maybe you should learn about anatomy before saying rediculous things?

Hmm..speaking of "rediculous" things...I find it "rediculous" that you seem to be insistent upon taking people's words and twisting them to fit whatever you please, with utter disregard for what was actually said.

You mean exactly what you're doing?

How on Earth you managed to extrapolate a scenario in which I said that during CPR, you "compress the cardiac notch" is baffling. In order to accomplish that, you'd have to remove the sternum and the ribs. That's a little more involved than CPR, I'm afraid.

Twisting my words. You said "You are still compressing the sternum, directly over the cardiac notch". That's what I was referring to. Maybe I should have said "over". My point is still valid.

No. You do compressions about two inches left of the midline, at the lower lateral aspect of the sternum, above the xyphoid process. The heart is not a flat object. It does not sit flat in the chest cavity. It is muscle which expands and contracts, it is articulated at an angle and the left chest is specifically designed to give it space, hence the cardiac notch that it is nestled in.

2 inches to the left of center is no longer on the sternum and you would have a high chance of breaking ribs. If this is true, do you have ANY evidence you do compressions 2 inches to the left?

I find it almost amusing that rather than accept the fact that I have consistently agreed with the assertion that the anatomy has not changed, some of you still try to make it sound as if I said the opposite. It's not about the details...any way you think you can lump us all together, you'll pounce on, and if we don't say things to support that, why you just make something up instead.

For your compressions to work, the anatomy would have had to change. No making up anything there.

To my knowledge, the human anatomy has not changed. Period. The fact that I corrected someone who was mocking another poster and incorrectly stated that the heart lies square in the middle of the chest has nothing to do with any ME. It is and has always been slightly left of the mediastinum, and that's not going to change, no matter how many words you twist around.

I haven't twisted anything. Unlike yourself.

Ok. So at least you're acknowledging now that the heart is not in fact dead centre in the chest. That was all the entire conversation was about. The placement of the heart. Such a simple, minor thing blown completely out of proportion because someone who has been harassing every person in here and demanding that only factual proof be given said something that was anatomically incorrect while openly mocking another poster, and I corrected him. It's just "rediculous", don't you think?

The heart is more centered than it is to the left. Some people even have their hearts slightly to the right. That's why cor is done in the center.

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps we can go back to discussing the topic. I'm relieved to see that you don't actually believe the human heart is located in the centre of the chest. Particularly since every anatomical chart out there shows that is clearly not true, as well as easily accessible medical literature. Have a nice day, now.

So you're not going to show any proof of your cpr technique? I guess we'll chalk this up to laziness then.

Chalk it up to whatever you like. But you're the one asking for proof when you quite obviously have the ability to look it up for yourself. If you want to call me lazy because you want your hand held, so be it. But if you can make it onto this forum and find the fortitude to post all these snarky, assumptive, convoluted...and dare I say "rediculous" attempts at baiting an argument, logic dictates that you are also capable of executing a simple Google search all by yourself as well. Good luck to you.

It's not up to me to back up your claims lol.

Do you not know how claims and evidence work?

Do you realize what forum you're in? I've given evidence, even though I'm not obligated to in this particular forum, in a conversation that was not even concerning what you're currently trying to make it about. However, I am not going to provide evidence for something that I was not arguing in the first place. That is your fabrication, therefore you can look up your own evidence.

Since you were not remotely involved in that conversation, I wouldn't expect you to know the thoughts of the people who actually were...but I certainly wouldn't expect you to use it as an excuse to start harassing me about something you made up on the fly to bicker about, either. That's why it's often wise to stay out of things that do not concern you.

This conversation is over now. Have a lovely day.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Your argument was that cpr is done on the left side of the chest. Apparently you got taught it. If you got taught it, there would be proof. If there was any proof, you would have posted it 2 pages ago instead of this little tirade you're on.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tigertatzen

If that actually happened, it might still be ongoing. Things might still be changing...like wakes in the water of a lake after a boat has made a sudden turn or acceleration. Other boats in the area will be displaced ever so slightly, over and over, until the motion of the water plays itself out. Just a thought that occurred to me. What do you think?

I think not.
I quite well remember when the 50th state joined the Union. There have been none since.

Yes, I haven't ever known anything other than that there are fifty states myself. But, imagining that some sort of time/dimension shift type of thing actually occurred...and assuming that these extra states literally disappeared from the planet...could it conceivably cause the global geography to shift over time? Or at all?

I remember someone a while back talking about water displacement causing a tsunami, and I was just sitting here sketching and the thought occurred to me. But I'm not certain if these folks are talking about actual chunks of the US suddenly aren't there. That's what led me to ask.

a reply to: tigertatzen

But I'm not certain if these folks are talking about actual chunks of the US suddenly aren't there.

I'm not certain that they know what they are talking about at all.

a reply to: Profusion

Here's a thought.

Maybe the ones who think there are 51 states are getting confused with the film 51st state?

As for the 52 and 53? Could likely chalk that up to bad knowledge.

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: TombEscaper

Thanks for mentioning Haley's Comet. I actually made a post on this very thing a while back.

I don't remember Captain Crunch, but I do remember when I discovered that MacDonald's had become McDonald's. I remember noticing this in the backseat as my family drove past one. My father assured me that it had always been McDonald's. I was little at the time, maybe 7 or so. This would have been thirty years ago (around 1986.)

The Big Mac made more sense back then.

I see that the vultures swooped in pretty quickly on that topic!

I don't ever remember the Macdonald's/Mcdonald's issue, but I'm sure I had never heard "Halley's" Comet until the ME phenomenon. No disputes about the pronunciation, nothing. It was always "Haley's Comet." Period. Simple and easy.

One interesting thing I found in the 1986 NASA YouTube video for "Halley's Comet" is in the commentary under that video. I don't know how well this will show up, but look at the second comment from the bottom, made by a person named Haley, one year ago.



Her username is under Haley, but her comment says "My name is Halley." So, if something changed Haley's Comet to Halley's Comet, did it also change her comment, but not her username? Moreover, if it has "always been" Halley's, why would someone named Haley feel the need to comment on the video for a comet that is neither spelled like nor pronounced like her name? Or, is it just that this person is thoroughly confused about the spelling of their own name? (This is what the skeptrolls are likely to say.)

Strange, strange elements involved with all of this.

originally posted by: alienDNA
a reply to: Habit4ming

Relax buddy. I have read the thread, I mustve missed your comment. CHILL.

First of all, I am an old lady, not a buddy. Second of all, don't make inaccurate accusatory comments to me,
and I won't need to chill.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I finally am caught up with this thread. Bragg's vs. Bragg organic apple cider vinegar was a new one for me and
another one of which I am certain. It was always Bragg's. I have bought the stuff for years. I have a bottle sitting
in my closet that says Bragg and which looks so strange. I also like the other organic apple cider vinegar, too, and buy it often: Eden Organics. Brown bottle. Cured in wood.

I, too, do not want to read the 'official list of 500 Mandela Effect items' since I am sure it could and would affect
this situation.

So where I currently stand is that South America on the map is too far east; anatomy, at least liver, intestines, stomach has changed (maybe more -- I have not checked out other anatomical maps just yet); Bragg's vinegar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LoneCloudHopper2: I recall Alaska and Russia being close, but not as close as they are now portrayed.

I have not done that little test yet, but will within the next few days. From reading the entire thread, I don't think
it'll go anywhere, but that remains to be seen.