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

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's very interesting and I think it does require decent investigation.
I have no qualifications and it deserves far better people than I to look into it however I'm content with my explanation. I'm still waiting for it to be proven wrong.

Basically you will find that what we remember is the thing that is easier to remember.
I'm yet to see an example in which what is remembered intuitively makes less sense than what we can see was recorded.

If everyone thought it was Brownsend and not Townsend my argument wouldn't stand.
However in this case like with all that I'm aware of we assume what we read is wrong and correct it whilst reading it.

Below is also an example of something that can change whilst you read it. Even though I typed it my brain still lies to me and I have to do a doubletake every time to see the error.

THINK YOU YOU CAN'T BE FOOLED

originally posted by: denybedoomed
okay, this thread has officially blown my mind and i have to leave. . . .

It's been a long time since something in the ATS or conspiracy world blew my mind. The last time I probably had my mind blown was when I read "Behold a Pale Horse." I thought I had heard virtually all such esoteric or conspiracy ideas by now.

But then last night I began reading about the Mandela Effect lol. Mind Blown. I don't know how or what I feel about it. But it definitely revived that eery dread-like feeling that all is not as it seems.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TombEscaper

Massive amounts of people struggle with the use of 3 little words, two, too and to.

That alone puts a big hole in this idea.

You know movies get re-edited quite often, like ET, the original all the cops had guns, but later versions someone went and shopped them all out. Star Wars is well known to have been manipulated hugely in later versions, have you ruled out editing in your above examples?

It doesn't though. That is primarily a literacy issue, not some mis-remembering. And it's clearly associated with education level.

originally posted by: wesleyapril
a reply to: Agartha

There are those of us that remember that Rock of Gilbratar being in the damn sea - so when we were looking at a map and saw it CONNECTED to land we were like wth - even Kanye wrote a song about having to get to the rock via water.

No, not at all. It's always been the southern point of Europe across from present-day Morocco. The British defended it against a LAND attack in the 1800's. I've even seen the embattlements and land defenses regarding this battle, having been there.

originally posted by: jacygirl
a reply to: wesleyapril

omg!!! Seriously??

Now it's Payless ShoeSource....??

I've had enough of this crap. I wanna go home to blue skies, yellow sun, puffy clouds...and Berenstein Bears.
This is a nightmare!

jacy

OMG, wtf. Seriously, I know that it used to be Payless Shoes. All the way growing up. However, is this just a re-branding?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I want you to really think hard about that question you just asked. Ask it to yourself out loud...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's always been Payless. The "shoesource" was always in tiny letters on the sign so people just called it Payless.

What did you buy at Payless? Shoes. Saying Payless by itself didn't make a lot of sense, so people would just say Payless Shoes.

This same conversation had been beat to death. It's the same as Belk/Belks and JC Penny/JC Penny's.

People just don't look real hard at signs.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I want you to really think hard about that question you just asked. Ask it to yourself out loud...

Oh, it's still perfectly fine. I was addressing your assertion that because this local paper has a version of Berenstein that many of us recall as being correct, that it must be a typo. That may or may not be true. It's relative to the topic at hand in this thread.. But just dismissing as a typo evidence that it HAS been spelled Berenstein before, isn't really good argumentation.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's always been Payless. The "shoesource" was always in tiny letters on the sign so people just called it Payless.

What did you buy at Payless? Shoes. Saying Payless by itself didn't make a lot of sense, so people would just say Payless Shoes.

This same conversation had been beat to death. It's the same as Belk/Belks and JC Penny/JC Penny's.

People just don't look real hard at signs.

I could buy this argument, and I am not really invested in this example. As I asked, maybe it's rebranding.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2
Acting young? No. I am not young nor do attempt to act so.
But the thread is not about me, is it?

I completely understand the point you are making Phage, about the problems with memory. As a former psychology honors student, and one who worked in a psych research lab for two years, I know many of the studies about memory that you are alluding to. For example, eye witness testimony has been cast into serious doubt the past decade or so, precisely due to very credible psychology studies showing that people's eyewitness memories are often not accurate.

Having said that, what if there are occurrences beyond this, related to this Mandela Effect. Without me saying it is true, could you open your mind to the possibility that there are alternate universes, or perhaps changes in time, space, and "facts" let's say?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's a good argument that people have always spelled it wrong, not that it used to be different. Again, your picture was one mistake out of hundreds of local TV guides in 1985. By definition that's a typo.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What does opening our minds to multiple universes have to do with accepting the ME? I lean towards string theory, I still reject ME as everything ME people bring up has had simple explanations.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What does opening our minds to multiple universes have to do with accepting the ME? I lean towards string theory, I still reject ME as everything ME people bring up has had simple explanations.

Because that is one of the hypotheses.

I agree that people should be critical, and debate. However, a little open mindedness goes a long way regarding this not just being a memory issue, or mistaken pronunciation that became somehow part of our culture.

Again, the one that got me is the Berenstein Bears example. I was absolutely shocked when someone said that now it is Berenstain. As in, last night I had never heard of any of this stuff, and that one actually messed with me. I was read these books as a child. I read them to my younger brother for years. And then I read them to my own son. This isn't some passing familiarity. This is why I'm trying to think it through. Is it possible that a lot of us are not remembering it correctly? Of course. But in this one example, that doesn't seem right at all to me. I believe I know exactly how my family and I read it and saw it for literally 20 years. So then if this is evidence of some other kind of memory issue as perhaps Phage is saying, it would be pretty incredible.

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: TheKestrel04
I found these 2 maps on google, both can be faked easily. If someone found a variety of old atlases with New Zealand to the West of Australia then you'd have to wonder how did that get so far.Then you can fly over that area in real time to verify which map is the "correct" one relatively speaking. Real is relative... Map 1

Map 2

The first one is a little more in line with what I seem to recall around Australia. South America is still way too far east though. The second one is definitely more on par with what I remember of South America's locale in comparison to North America. The maps that we have now look ridiculous with how far east SA has shifted.

I just want to point out for the map ME folks, that many of our maps historically were totally distorted. For example, Africa traditionally was mapped as far smaller than it actually is. Now some newer maps are being re-adjusted to show higher accuracy. This COULD be part of what you guys are referring to. Also, the farther away from the equator a country or landmass is the more distorted it is in normal maps. You may have seen some adjusted maps that attempt to recreate actual size or distances.. Just a thought.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're a forum sliding troll who is making a pretence at having asked legitimate questions and having not received answers, despite the wonderfully rich and detailed discussion which filled the thread before you arrived with your song & dance. You aren't fooling any of us, and we only point out your tactics so that less aware persons perusing these pages won't be swayed by your burgeoning psy-op.

Best.

Really?

Ciao.

To be fair to him, this site's motto is something like "deny ignorance." Him playing the devil's advocate and asking critical questions isn't necessarily "trolling" or "shilling." I say that as someone who as of yesterday, is interested in this subject. But any *serious* investigation of controversial phenomena requires hardcore and yes sometimes contentious debate.

I think that is what Gryphon is saying, and Phage. People shouldn't take it personally.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

When we think we've been right for 20 years and then suddenly find out we weren't it can be hard to wrap or heads around.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I believe I know exactly how my family and I read it and saw it for literally 20 years. So then if this is evidence of some other kind of memory issue as perhaps Phage is saying, it would be pretty incredible.

It is incredible, the reality of the situation is so much more amazing than the silly ideas about dimensions etc.

I provided an example earlier of something I can read wrong even though I wrote it.

Mandolia(which I will keep repeating until I'm proven wrong) seems to be the only rational and testable explanation I am aware of.

I can only speak from personal experience however with every single "Mandella Effect" I have experienced (which there are many) the only consistent thing is that what I remember intuitively makes more sense than what I can actually see to be true.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

When we think we've been right for 20 years and then suddenly find out we weren't it can be hard to wrap or heads around.

My mother just confirmed via email that she thinks it is Berenstein. I simply asked if it was the Berenstein versus Berenstain. I didn't mention any controversy. My parents used to literally have probably 30 of these books, until my parents gave them to my son.

Forgive me guys, as I just learned about the Mandela Effect and even this very thread on Friday.

Here is an interesting video about Jiffy Peanut Butter. Now, as people may know, the brand says "Jif."

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: TombEscaper
The idea that past timelines are being tampered with is catching a lot of steam by the day, almost exponentially via Youtube and other internet sites, and with good reason. Anomalies are now leaking through (from wherever) at an alarming pace. One of the best examples of the absolute undeniability of something strange happening is the morphing of the name of country singer Reba Mcintyre into Reba Mcentire. Unlike with the Berensteins, where proof of a change is hard to come by (save for the infamous 2001 Coasterbuzz 2-page forum topic in which every single poster refers to them as Berenstein, found here: coasterbuzz.com...://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Topic/berenstein-bear-land-or-snoo py-land ), there is an abundance of proof that something bizarre has happened with the name of this country singer.

First of all, we see that typing “Reba M” into the Google search bar relegates us to a selection of only the unfamiliar looking “new” name:

Here we can see that all results for “Reba M” consist of the odd-looking “Mcentire.” This is the case with her website, the Google result on the right, Wikipedia, Facebook, and a news headline from just recently.

And just like with the Bears’ books, we see through an image search of her discography that the name is spelled like this on her albums. It has been “retroactively changed.” She has “always been” Reba Mcentire. Two examples:

But whoever or whatever is doing this doesn’t seem to have been as thorough in “destroying the evidence” as with the Bears. When typing “Reba Mcintyre” into the Google search, we get the typical forced results of what Google wants us to see, which is Mcentire. But when clicking on the “search instead for Reba Mcyntire” link, we get something that does really not happen with the Bears.

We again get the “Mcentire” Google profile results on the right, but we have multiple links with Reba Mcintyre, including the Mandela Effect results discussing this very issue, but also with 2016 tour dates and Youtube music videos. We also have these proofs, from 2013 and 2008:

As we can see, “Reba Mcintyre” doesn’t seem to be as restricted as the “Berenstein Bears,” as Google does not even provide a “search instead for” link for the Bears.

So skeptics, let us now think about this logically. There are now, undoubtedly, thousands upon thousands (if not more) of mentions of the “BerenstEin Bears” in internet land. And Berenstein is an actual surname. So why then does Google yet insist on underlining the word as a non-word, and still try to pull BerenstAin search results when BerenstEin is searched?

The same can be said for Mcintyre. Clearly, there are many mentions of “Reba Mcintyre” on the internet, and yet, when that name is searched, Google insists on only offering results for the NEW name?

Why?

Even if the people who remember Berenstein and Mcintyre are wrong (which they are not), can we not see that Google is somehow being programmed to suppress those results and only offer results for the “new” names?

As more and more of this continues to come out, it is going to have to begin being accepted that the “skeptics” who continue to reply to these types of topics by dismissively insisting that people are “misremembering” things, well, it is going to have to begin to be concluded that these are people with an agenda (whatever it may be) and not merely internet“skeptics.”

This phenomenon can no longer be realistically denied.

Another emerging example of it (of many that are coming out now) involves the adult diapers that everyone has known as “Depends.” We all know Depends as the butt of many jokes, but sometime very recently, they have been retroactively changed to drop the “s” at the end. So they are no longer “Depends,” but “Depend.” That is just silly, as these are diapers, and would be akin to Huggies being called “Huggie,” Pampers being called “Pamper,” or Luvs being called “Luv.” This brand was in fact, and still “somewhere” possibly, known as DependS.

But a Youtube search for commercials of these diapers from the 80’s and 90’s and in more recent times shows that they have, in fact, “always been” Depend.

How much longer can people continue to deny that something other worldly and possibly nefarious is happening here, and as opposed to the idea of it being ridiculed or dismissed, it should be acknowledged and urgently investigated, as it may very well concern the future of civilization and the effects on both individual and mass consciousness itself.

It is quite possible that there is a war on for the enslavement of your very consciousness through highly advanced technological manipulations. And people are awakening to more and more of these discoveries almost by the day, so whatever is pushing this seems to be in a bit of hurry to accomplish whatever it is trying to accomplish.

This is not the time for games or jokes, and there is not much point in trying to debate with those who continue to deny it is happening. Ignore them and they will go away.

originally posted by: pirhanna

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pirhanna

On the contrary. When applied appropriately, it depends upon facts and observations. It helps to avoid creating assumptions to support other assumptions.

Perhaps you should review the scientific method. It starts with observations, which is what's going on here. It doesn't start with "i've decided that everyone else is idiots because they don't follow my belief system and shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves, so I'll quote occam's razor instead of saying anything of substance"

This thread has been somewhat derailed (good job guys, you earned your pay, or made yourselves feel better about some inner insecurity, I dunno), but I think we actually got what we needed out of it already, and we can move forward with fresh approaches to ME, with some ideas in mind as we continue to experience these changes.

How Occam's Razor fails: Example: I drop my pen from my desk and it hits the floor. The simplest explanation is that the ground pulled the pen to the floor. Truth is that space and time are curved in a manner we can't see or easily detect and the pen fell because of the dimensional warping. Occam's razor is not scientific. It's not always wrong, but the simplest explanations sometimes just aren't true. It's a poor substitute for critical thinking. Occam's razor is even more preposterous if applied to quantum physics.

I agree. Sometimes the "simplest" answer or the "one with the fewest assumptions" isn't fact. And if we really spent the time listing it out, I am certain we could come up with a 1000 examples of how Occam's Razor fails.

Also folks, Occam's Razor isn't some kind of heavily peer reviewed scientific theory. It's a philosophic construct.

So when you use it to shut someone down, using it as some kind of Trump card, you aren't actually winning. You just think you are.