A study done on the phenomena called Mandela effect

a reply to: sputniksteve

All good, you don't want a discussion as you have already made your mind up.

Your explanation a while back of...

No amount of name game BS will change what I know, because it is knowing in a way that I can't possibly make you underatand.

made it clear. You have a special understanding and you can't possibly make anyone else understand.

I just don't get the impression you are really looking to understand. I've asked you previously how many names ending in "stain" you could think of. You refused to answer this.

I've pointed out that Mr Berenstain was told by his teachers in the 1930's that his name was incorrect, and asked how this relates to your theory. You refused to answer this.

Rather than put words in your mouth let's use yours...

I have more chance convincing you your name is different than what it is, than you do to argue me into believing the opposite of what I believe.

The main difference here is I'm looking for things which prove my theory wrong.
You openly accept that your mind cannot be changed and ignore anything that threatens your little bubble.

It's amusing and says a lot about the ME movement.
I'm treating our conversations like you are some punk because your actions suggest this is the case.

But hey, I could be wrong and if that is the case then I'm just wasting your time. If this is the case I apologise, and to avoid this being a complete loss I may be able to give you some advice which has helped other punk's in similar circumstances.

With great power comes great responsibility

Ok guys, although I`m uncomfortable posting anything JFK related, please explain this.

1:04 - 'It must be pointed out, I think, that besides the president, the first lady Mrs. Kennedy, the Gov. John Connally and the SS man driving the car, there were no other individuals that close at the time of the assassination'

Even if you include Mrs. Connally, that`s 5 people, not 6 like in all the vids you can find. How can you blame memory on this one, I wonder?

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

The news guy didn't mention the guy sitting next to the driver.
Without looking into it further perhaps that guy had already spoken which would explain why he wasn't mentioned.

Are you suggesting that the Mandela Effect regarding JFK is different to what is stated?
I never questioned the 2 front seats were occupied, it's the middle row which seems like it's new. Have I misunderstood what the ME is here?

edit to add, my explanation isn't the best there. After listening to it a few more times it sounds more like he says Secret Service Men. I'm not sure what the SS passenger guy does. If he's a navigator then describing them as the SS men driving seems accurate.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Hmm, which one is correct and is more likely to fit in in the sentence.

It must be pointed out, I think, that besides the president, the first lady Mrs. Kennedy, the Gov. John Connally and the SS man driving the car...

or

It must be pointed out, I think, that besides the president, the first lady Mrs. Kennedy, the Gov. John Connally and the SS men driving the car...

Were there more than one driving the car? I understand your concern here but to me it sounds like it was a single driver.

As for ME, yeah it is possible that there are more than one truth, more different realities. 4 people and a missing row, 5 people and no missing row and 6 people in the video. Something is definitely off here.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Let's say he did mention one driver, I still think it's men but for the sake of argument.

Have you heard of anyone who "knew" of the "reality" with an empty front passenger seat?

It's possible someone did, I'm yet to see them however. 5 people and no missing row is not something either unless people are thinking there was someone sitting next to JFK or the first lady.

It seems you are now trying to use "realities" that no one has claimed to exist to prove "realities" that some claim to exist.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I`m not trying to prove anything. I just asked for an explanation. So you think it`s MEN and that would explain it very well. I have no problem with that.

All I`m saying that it appears to be more than one or two possiblities. However, in JFK case anything is possible without even having to pinch it on the ME. You know, misinformation, evidence manipulation, witness persuasion and so on. It`s a sensitive case to begin with...

a reply to: sputniksteve

the mandela effect is theory.

prove it if its real.

a reply to: combatmaster

You are not alone, but you are missing the point entirely.

Is it a theory that thousands of people are reporting that their memories are different from reality or is it factual? Can you go online and find these reports that people are claiming their memories are different from reality or is it an idea that we talk about that isn't really happening?

What you and the people claiming to know what I think or believe are failing to understand is that I have never once said that this cannot be confabulation or poor memory. I don't believe it is, but I don't ever discount the possibility. In fact I don't make any claims to know what the cause of it is, and until I can be certain I will not make claims.

If the cause is nothing but Confabulation and false or incorrect memory, it is still a phenomenon that is happening that can be and is labeled the Mandela Effect. I personally think that if this is the case, there is still more information to be gleaned from it but that is beside the point. If you would prefer to call it something else like "Mass misremembering of past events" then feel free to try and start the trend of getting people to adopt it.

This is not a difficult concept, I am not cryptic when I mention it. I am very upfront and honest about my approach to the subject. Please don't assume that I have some ulterior motive or beliefs that I am not telling anyone. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be pigeonholed into a positition that I don't actually take or argue.

The only thing I am absolutely firm on and will not waiver from, is that when I was a child I read books named Berenstein Bears. The reason I am firm in that statement is that I have specific reasons for why I remember it that way, it is not in a casual or passive regard. I don't claim that my memory is different because of time portals or collapsing worm holes, and I am open to the possibility that I am remembering wrong, but in my opinion incorrect memory doesn't address the reasons that I remember things the way I remember them, only that my memory is somehow wrong. For me that doesn't make it the most likely or plausible explanation.

I hope that is clear enough of an explanation. If it is not, then I don't know what else to tell you. It does take a little bit of ability to think outside of the standard paradigm though, and I do understand not everyone is capable of doing that.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
It does take a little bit of ability to think outside of the standard paradigm though, and I do understand not everyone is capable of doing that.

And there we go!

The real reason the Mandela Effect is so popular.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: sputniksteve
It does take a little bit of ability to think outside of the standard paradigm though, and I do understand not everyone is capable of doing that.

And there we go!

The real reason the Mandela Effect is so popular.

And again it blows right over your head Krahzeef. I guess my expectations need to be set even lower.

a reply to: sputniksteve

If your expectation is that everyone shares the same delusions of having a pointless superpower (or capability to think outside the standard paradigm) then yes.

You should definitely set your expectations lower.

We are constantly shifting realities but we don't notice because the changes are so small.
The mandela effect is when people have shifted to a reality that has noticeable changes from their previous realities.

Deja Vu is an effect of shifting.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Notice how he mentions Planck time yet doesn't know how many plancks per second there are?

I dare say all of his work is equally studied.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I used the video as an example of the concept I was discussing, not as a definitive scientific breakdown of the concept.
Yet you chose to focus on the area he wasn't sure of and not on the concept of shifting realities.

There are plenty videos discussing the concept at length but I chose one that would serve the purpose quickly.

Maybe these would be more suitable for you?

a reply to: mclarenmp4

The first was interesting. I'm a little concerned with all the money we spend on cancer research when these guys have already figured it out. Why do you think this isn't used in hospitals today?

Any video which claims understanding of quantum mechanics and uses it to validate faith healing I have to be skeptical of.

Also, it doesn't support the first video you posted at all.

As for the 2nd video, I can't see myself sticking around for the full 1.5hrs.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

OK, $99 for the online course.
$1400 for the 6day retreat, not including accomodation (But he does give you lunch each day).

Non transferable tickets and a maximum 90% refund provided you cancel 3months before the event.

I should probably go more into detail about his theories, but this is so obviously BS.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Faith healing can work, the problem is that people only go to these alternative methods once they get ill.
They don't truly believe it because they haven't practiced the mindset required to achieve healing through will of consciousness.
I believe that I am immune to flu, I've believed it since I was a kid because people around me would get flu, but what they describe I have never had. Never needed a flu shot in my life, never had the flu.
Have I just been lucky, am I immune to the flu or is it my lifelong belief that I am immune to flu that stops me from getting it?
In my experience I would suggest the latter.

It's essentially using the Law of Attraction to manifest health in your life but if you unconsciously don't believe it can be done, it won't be done. It's that simple.
This is why the LOA is difficult to prove to a skeptic because the very nature of being a skeptic will stop you from seeing it in action.

There was an excellent thread authored by someone who is an expert on the subject here on ATS.

ATS

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

No amount convincing would allow you to believe any concept we are discussing in this thread, so what's your motivation here?
I'm sure there are plenty of threads that are more in line with your interests, so why bother here. I don't mind a discussion but you've made it pretty clear that your not into discussing the subject matter but would rather discredit the source of random youtube videos I decided to post regarding the topic we are discussing.

So again, what's your point here?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: sputniksteve

If your expectation is that everyone shares the same delusions of having a pointless superpower (or capability to think outside the standard paradigm) then yes.

You should definitely set your expectations lower.

That's hilarious. Thank you, I was starting to think it was actually my poor explanation. Take care Khrazeef, have a good weekend.

Your subconscious mind, filling in the blanks... use Kitkat as an example.. on a normal day, who the # is going to notice the dash, or not? You're walking into heb with the subconscious belief that it is Kit-kat of corse you are not walking through the store thinking about kit-kat, you aren't even going to buy one this time... so your mind will fill in blanks that you are not paying attention to with what you believe cold heartedly it is.

Sort of like those videos where you are watching the guy talk, or do a magic trick... and while he does his thing in front of a red background, they change the background color to blue. You probably won't even notice it because you are distracted by the man doing the magic trick. Your subconscious, for the whole video, sees the background as red. After all, it was red before. Why wouldn't it be red when I look back? BUT indeed at the end of this video they let you know.. "did you notice the background changed to blue?"

And only after they tell you this, do you notice it is different the second time. Just as I will never see kit-kat again, you will always notice the change of background if you watch the video over.


This would explain why it is only subtle changes and not giant obvious ones.

You have to pay attention to these "changes" inorder to see them for what they truely are and always were.