Mandela Effect - Headings vs Text - A Possible ME Start Date?

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: Greggers

No - it's not hard to redirect a url.. I've redirected many urls - It's super easy and there's multiple ways to do it too.


a reply to: TerryDon79

No - those examples are nothing like mine.


a reply to: Greggers

Examples should match mine - apples to apples.

Again, see my reply.

It's annoying when people like you make threads, receive a response that doesn't suit your agenda and then simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Again I entertain ME and that is exactly why I dislike this thread.
I wish this site had a "this is about braindead" button to go with the S&Fs.

Electronic information is easy to manipulate as a human.
Mistakes are even easier to make.

Your whole idea is flawed. I'm sorry but that's the truth. Read my other reply. If you insist I explain it to you then I will walk you through how these things are stored electronically in EVERY details just so I can prove the basis wrong.

Again as others have pointed out - people mispell things. I can't tell you how many times I've had to edit professional articles because of my screw-ups. We are human.

This is a fine example of a bad editor but nothing more.

a reply to: FamCore

Thanks for at least not using "proof" or "evidence" in the title OP.

It thought it was "poof".

I also think this is just typos.

originally posted by: Greggers
[..]
I've said it was more problematic.
What are you talking about with your "apples to apples" comment?
[..]

It's not more problematic. Why do you say that?

It's easy to do and is often done ahead of the change on the page.

Apples to apples because you said...

If every editor makes two titling mistakes a year, and there are 10,000 editors writing titles (a number I totally just made up because this is skunk works), and the internet keeps things alive for a very long time and makes searching for discrepancies relatively easy....

Well, that equals A LOT of erroneous source material.

I'm not talking about typos. I'm talking about the heading being spelled one way and the same term spelled different in the text.

It's not A LOT of erroneous material. There was a limited amount that I could find.

They ranged in time from the first occurrence of the term in print, till around 2008.

Only specific terms have these errors; they are terms many others have labeled as a Mandela Effect.

No other terms could be found by myself, that's why I'm wondering if anyone else can find one.

originally posted by: Pearj
It's not more problematic. Why do you say that?

Because changing the text on the page doesn't orphan a dead URL, nor does it require one to create a redirect (one potential solution) or leave an additional copy of the page out there (another potential solution).

Changing the text on the page literally takes 2 seconds.

Apples to apples because you said...

This is skunk works, so I'd be happy to rearrange my example any way you like. Heck, you go ahead and rewrite it "apples to apples" making my point for me, and I'll give you a thumbs up.

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: DISRAELI
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: FamCore
a reply to: stinkelbaum

If what you say is true then we should find many other examples of a given term that's misspelled in the Heading and correct in the text?

Will you back up what you say by finding a term with many examples that's misspelled in the Heading and correct in the body?

More specifically, headings that are not known "Mandela" effects. The examples that you provided are known to be effects; hence your entire correlation.

We need examples of headings being misspelled with the correct spelling consistently used in the body, that are not tied in any way to the effects at all. We also need at least the same number of examples that you presented here, in order to support the argument that somehow all of your examples, where the heading and ONLY the heading is misspelled, yet every subsequent name/word that is misspelled in the title is spelled "correctly" throughout were simply a bizarre, synchronic flurry of typos because...coincidence.

If those criteria were met explicitly, I think that the must-have-been-a-mysterious-typo-epidemic-that-happens-all-the-time-nothing-to-see-here argument could be considered something of value. Otherwise, ignore any further comments about it. People are going to believe what they want, and you'll wear yourself out trying to argue with them. It'll suck the soul right out of you after a while.

Great OP, S&F. Two things...you may have already fixed...it's Charles Schultz, Not John, and the Kathy Gifford thing...was there a spelling other than Kathie in that one or am I just missing it?

So a claim that these misspellings are somehow proof of timeline shifting requires no further proof, but the pedestrian claim that they're not requires a convoluted encyclopedia of corroboration?

Why?

It seems to me that the type of things associated with Mandela are exactly the type of things editors are likely to misspell.

That's probably how this stuff got started to begin with.

Again:

Stick with the OP topic, not each other:

Go After The Ball, Not The Player

If posts that are off topic keep happening, the post will not only be removed, but the posters will be Post Banned, and will not be posting anything anymore.

Do not reply to this post.

Anyone remember when 'eggs' waz spelled 'eegs' or 'genius' spelled 'genious'?

Because I do.

My timeline flipped, mom became mum mad aunty turned into auntie.

Your wrong I'm right. The most logical explanation is a time slip. Obviously. Even though I can't remember what I had for tea last night. Let alone what pants I had on. Time slip. An actual 'time slip'.

A god damn time slip.

A freaking time slip!
Time slip????

What the ****?

Man alive.

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: Greggers
[..]
I've said it was more problematic.
What are you talking about with your "apples to apples" comment?
[..]

It's not more problematic. Why do you say that?

It's easy to do and is often done ahead of the change on the page.

Apples to apples because you said...

If every editor makes two titling mistakes a year, and there are 10,000 editors writing titles (a number I totally just made up because this is skunk works), and the internet keeps things alive for a very long time and makes searching for discrepancies relatively easy....

Well, that equals A LOT of erroneous source material.

I'm not talking about typos. I'm talking about the heading being spelled one way and the same term spelled different in the text.

Yeah, but that IS a typo. It's a typo in the headline.

"typo: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material."

a reply to: DelMarvel

Many, many instances of the same word typed 'incorrectly' in the Heading, and not in the body.

Many, many examples of the same issue with the same word but only in Headings in a professional word environment over a great span of years.


Any generalized way the topic of this post is stated, it's obvious the issue isn't a typo.

I'm genuinely curious to know what this OP doesn't consider a Mandela Effect.

As for the content of the OP the answer is clear. Human error.

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: DelMarvel

Many, many instances of the same word typed 'incorrectly' in the Heading, and not in the body.

Many, many examples of the same issue with the same word but only in Headings in a professional word environment over a great span of years.

I wouldn't say you've provided "Many, many examples." And the newspapers in question aren't exactly the New York Times. Look at the examples you're citing:

Kathy/Kathie

Barbra/Barbara

Reeves/Reeve

Shultz/Schultz

Summer/Summers

Townsend/Townshend

In just about every example the incorrect spelling is what someone would guess if they didn't know any better and didn't bother to check. And the headlines are traditionally written by someone other than the writer of the article.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: Greggers
[..]
I've said it was more problematic.
What are you talking about with your "apples to apples" comment?
[..]

It's not more problematic. Why do you say that?

It's easy to do and is often done ahead of the change on the page.

Apples to apples because you said...

If every editor makes two titling mistakes a year, and there are 10,000 editors writing titles (a number I totally just made up because this is skunk works), and the internet keeps things alive for a very long time and makes searching for discrepancies relatively easy....

Well, that equals A LOT of erroneous source material.

I'm not talking about typos. I'm talking about the heading being spelled one way and the same term spelled different in the text.

Yeah, but that IS a typo. It's a typo in the headline.

"typo: an error (as of spelling) in typed or typeset material."

Yep. These are spelling mistakes BY DEFINITION.

Statistically speaking, it should hardly be surprising that since the very first printing press was made, and human started printing things like newspapers and magazines, etc, that mistakes have been made.

I do not see how this can even be considered a ME thing at all.

Mistakes get made, especially when one goes back in time with how things were done compared to today's world with autocorrect features and word processing programs.

If the OP had been something like: "In my time line, that famous image of Truman holding up a news paper that says "Dewy Wins!" actually said "Truman Looses!", then that would be an actual ME thread.

This thread?

The only thing that the OP has shown in this thread is: Humans make mistakes, and sometimes misspell people's names.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I'm genuinely curious to know what this OP doesn't consider a Mandela Effect.

The topic is in the OP.

the ball, not the player

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I'm genuinely curious to know what this OP doesn't consider a Mandela Effect.

the ball, not the player

I didn't attack you. People scrutinizing the Mandela Effect are not attacking you. People scrutinizing your conclusions and how/why you came to them are not attacking you. You are not stupid for believing in the Mandela Effect. The Mandela Effect is a stupid thing to believe in. And you find stupid reasons to believe it. And then you make these posts with disclaimers. That basically sound like you want to create an echo chamber for yourself. And that the "skeptic culture" on ATS are cyber bullies. You use that to justify ignoring criticism.

Even the creationists offer up better "evidence" for their beliefs.

These threads can be equally entertaining though.



On topic: Could you explain why the examples you have presented us in the OP cannot be innocent typos?

Thanks.

This last weekend, I discovered my swimming trunks suddenly don't fit. Also, I am much more buoyant in water.

Clearly I have teleported to an alternate dimension with very strange laws of physics.

I am reminded of this: