A study done on the phenomena called Mandela effect

Once you understand that consciousness is not something of the physical body, it opens your mind that the reality we experience is not as real as we think it is.

Some people experience this through drugs, some have experienced it through traumatic events, nde's and obe's alike.

The film Dr Strange is spot on with a lot of the astral theology & it brings the astral world into the consciousness of many who had no clue such an existence is possible.

That in itself will bring about an awakening of consciousness.

How "real" is our existence? I'll let this video show how fragile "reality" is.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
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?

My motivation is just to try and prove my ME theory incorrect.Whilst it seems people are happier to believe they have superpowers then actually look into how the mind works it's hard to find anyone willing to discuss it honestly.

I seem to have these superpowers also however when every "alternate" reality I remember makes absolutely no difference to me it raises some questions. The same irrelevance seems to apply to everyone's "gift".

I could easily be convinced if someone had a convincing argument. The first vid and the second vid don't agree with each other and the final vid is an obvious scam artist.

Every discussion I have seems to result in people unwilling to question their own ideas. I may as well be discussing religion as my inability to be convinced always seems to be my fault.

I'm not convinced because I'm yet to see convincing evidence. I'm hoping in vain to come across some evidence and find out how others have been convinced.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Now that video was actually really interesting.
That's convincing and has explanatory power for a variety of things.

This video actually shows clearly that consciousness IS a physical thing however.
It seems to explain the feeling of oneness that I have personally felt through certain "recreational" means.

I have a long running argument with a few friends on whether certain "recreational" means allow you to actually see more reality or whether it's clouding your reality. I personally believe that to understand what reality is you have to understand what reality isn't and that's why "escaping" our mind is so important.

I'm not as dismissive as you may assume.
I personally accept the powers of meditation and how have experienced how those powers can be increased massively with "medicinal" help, or in large groups, and especially both together.

I worked for a teacher of astral projection for about a year but was unable to pass the vibration stage. He refused to teach anyone because of the dangers he perceived however he lead me in the right direction to find the information. I do think this is more guided imagination than any real travel however.

I want answers to the big questions and any path that leads me closer I am grateful for.
Any bad answers however just delay people's growth or possibly stops it completely.

The Mandela Effect or switching infinitely between dimensions are bad answers, and nothing good can come from bad answers.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

In my old-reality, it was a completely different statue. He rests his head in a closed fist, his head was also a little tilted, you could see his pressed lips. His elbow was on his right leg, and his legs and feet were more spread, especially his left left.

Not only that, but the style of the statue changed too. It had a classic vibe, and like the old Monalisa, he had that serious, impenetrable look to his face. His toes weren't curled up, etc. Now the statue style is more romanticized, and different from head to toe. Completely different actually.

How many times has Desmond Tutu passed away?

a reply to: pfcrezende

The Mona Lisa was a big one for me but what I found really interesting was that underneath the Mona Lisa was another picture and funnily enough the picture found underneath has the same mouth as the Mona Lisa from my original timeline.

BBC

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Good find. I read people saying the same thing but what I remember is from a documentary that I watched where one of the mysteries surrounding Mona Lisa was that her expression is showing both the smile and being serious at the same time. That`s why they suspected that there is more than one image in there.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Yes your absolutely right it's meant to ambiguous, which is why the smirk is out of place. If you look at the underneath picture you can see it has the ambiguity.
It looks neither sad or happy, it's up to the viewer to interpret it, the eyes and the mouth tell different stories. Which is why the smirk makes no sense.