It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one. Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.
originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Gryphon66
The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one. Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.
As would I. How do you supposed we might find something like that if we always dismiss incongruities in our perceived reality as a flaw within ourselves?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AboveBoard
How did I prejudge you when I asked you a series of questions based on my understanding?
So I'm paraphrasing in order to consolidate and appreciate what you've said .... scientific understanding is useless because there are different theoretical bases for describing the finer points of something like, say, time, gravity and other fundamental forces, and since we know that our perceptions of reality are flawed and incomplete we couldn't trust any method or paradigm to parse and interpret it anyway ... what do we do?
I mean, billions use the concepts of time, gravity, inertia, space, mass, matter, energy, etc. daily in their lives productively. But because there are differing theoretical frameworks at some level of description for those quantities or qualities ... well, it's just really all too vague to say anything certain about anything?
Where are we left in your scenario?
We all just believe whatever we want because are no standards to compare anything to? No truth, no fact?
Is that really how you experience your existence?
I stated that I was paraphrasing you, expressing my understanding of what you had said. If you don't like my writing style, I'm sorry: I write the way I write, just as you do. I wouldn't ask you to avoid the rather refulgent way you write because of my reaction to it ...
You know the funny thing, despite the "communication irritation" between us ... I think you and I are probably saying the same thing to about a 97% factor.
The difference is, I want to see evidence (physical evidence, concrete evidence, etc.) for a time shift if there was one.
Or a dimensional skip, or a deific manipulation.
That's just "who I am. I'm not telling anyone else they can't "be who they are" and believe in time travel, or dimensional jumps of God's will ... but I'm also not going to try to "talk through their hat" ... I just try to say what I mean as clearly as I can.
originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD
The thing that bugs me is that the whole concept was they were simpatico due to both being 'metal mouths'... and her smiling so huge, in so many shots, was to show the braces...
that is an indelible, neurally networked memory for me, like dilemNa... and Louie Anderson being dead, due to circumstances and other memory about discussions over the instances, which make those so remarkable, to me, and so remains a destabilizing WTF instance ... to me (and others, thankfully).
The whole thing makes no sense w/out the braces!
I don't "always dismiss" anything.
I look at each instance individually and as carefully as I can.
How do you detect a "change" in the universe? Dig down one level ...
Who is we? I certainly never said that I thought a "change" in the universe happened. I have simply been speculating about alternate explanations for the phenomena of ME because the mundane explanation does not exactly fit for a few of my own memories.
Why do we think that a "change" in the universe has happened?
Good question and worth postulating. I don't have the answer though. Do you?
What would that be? Would it be something that only affected a few people? Or affected a lot of people differently ... individually?
What the hell? Yes it's Toons. Not Tunes. Otherwise Toontown would be Tunetown. Tunes makes no sense. At all. Toons is short for cartoons. But crap, I just searched and though Wikipedia references both, they have a screen cap of a 1940's era version saying Looney Tunes. Shaking my head. I'll be willing to concede faulty memory on this, though, because I haven't watched or paid any attention to the characters/franchise since I no longer have nor babysit children young enough to be interested in them. At least the more recent characters are still called Tiny Toons and they show is still Tiny Toons Adventures. Weird. Why would it be Tiny Toons and not Tiny Tunes for the sake of consistency?
originally posted by: tigertatzen
originally posted by: glowdog
i guess it´s my memory again but i was just seriously shocked when i found out that it seems to be "Looney Tunes" and not "Looney Toons".
Looney Tunes ? seriously ... gave me the mandela-effect so to say.
haha the more one looks at this the wackier it gets...
In my reality it was always Toons.
originally posted by: SheeplFlavoredAgain
Tunes makes no sense. At all.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: TombEscaper
I see what you mean. The eyebrows are definitely different, nose looks a bit different in some pics, and the mole may or may not exist in all of them.
This could be a case of Photoshop and/or make-up/grooming choices. If you can find pictures that clearly show a difference in his ears (i.e. the curve in the cartilage of the ear is like a fingerprint) then if they don't match and its not Photoshopped you might have a real mystery on your hands...
Did I miss anything?
- AB