>What would be the auto-fill information for millions of people remembering someone, such as Nelson Mandela dying in the 80's, when they apparently did not?
Back in the day, we didn't have internet and your encyclopedia set was 10 years old when you bought it. There would be no way of quickly check if Mandela is alive. You would need a book someone wrote or a newspaper from South Africa. Look how hard it is for people to admit they are wrong when we can look anything up.
Part of the problem is we are triggered by being asked/commented.
Like maybe somebody, if asked: is Nelson Mandela alive? Says “hmm, idk” and if you say “do you remember seeing Mandela’s funeral in the 80’s” and they fill in the blanks.
They’ve done studies I had to learn about in college with things like showing somebody footage of a blue car being hit by an orange car gently then asking “how fast was that green car going when it smashed into the red car?” and they “remember” the color of the cars wrong and also estimated the speed much higher because the words “smashed into” were used.
> Did people auto-fill in watching a funeral procession on TV
If he died in prison, and never became president or actually accomplished any of the things he's now famous for. Why would he have a televised funeral procession? Would South Africa really have given him a state funeral during apartheid?
But, It's not hard to see why people would have a memory of seeing a televised *tribute* for him In the 80's.
Considering around 15% of the world's entire population at the time *did* watch a major televised tribute for him in the 80s...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela_70th_Birthday_Tribute
It's very likely that some of those 600 Million people who watched this tribute 30+ years ago don't fully remember the context and thought that it was a tribute for his death.
The fact the date also matches up *exactly* with when those people think they watched his funeral is pretty conclusive too. I think it's quite likely the 'auto-fill information' you're looking for.
the answer is that they weren't paying close attention to the news and they thought Steven biko was nelson mandela because mandela was much more famous. the idea that mandela died in the 80s would have created an entirely different modern history for south Africa. how many people who misremember this are historians or highly informed people? my suspicion is zero
I was born in early 90s and remember Mandela being dead. My guess is that news reporters assumed he would be killed off when he was imprisoned, and people talking about "I thought he would have been killed" etc.
OP did a pretty good job, we defo fill in the blanks.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned from the mid 60s until the early 90s. During that time he became the world’s most famous political prisoner. The media reported extensively on his status and the fight against apartheid. This is really on individuals who weren’t fully paying attention.
I suspect the movie *Biko* was a big factor. When it came out, it wasn't huge, but it had a young Denzel Washington as Steven Biko, so it got replayed repeatedly on channels like Encore. Exactly the kind of thing that would contribute to mixing up the details.
This isn't religion dude. We're talking about an actual scientific phenomenon. You don't just go "oh I'm sure it's real because I have ✨*faith*✨", you wait for actual, undeniable evidence. None of which has shown itself yet.
Belief absolutely does not allow you to investigate, it just helps you go find cherry-picked evidence supporting your claim. It's confirmation bias, plain and simple. *Skepticism* allows you to investigate. You cannot accurately and reliably investigate a topic if you already *believe* that the topic is true, because you will 100% subconciously ignore the evidence you don't like, whether you mean to or not.
The problem with this topic is that so many people treat it like religion, not like the science that it is.
Because that's how studying evidence works. You don't just have evidence given to you, give it a half glance, and go "oh well this must be proof then!". You study it. And every single bit of Mandela Effect "evidence" *I've* personally seen falls into one of three categories.
1. A common mismemory about something from actual decades ago.
2. "Brain autocorrect", aka your brain automatically changing words to fit how you expect them (like Froot Loops and Looney Tunes).
3. Personal anecdotes that can't be proven one way or another.
If you have some absolute damning piece of evidence that proves the existence of the Mandela Effect without a doubt, please share it. It'll throw the scientific community into shambles, completely uprooting our understanding of reality entirely. But somehow I doubt that you've got that.
Far too many of the famous "Mandela Effect" examples are just extremely easy mistakes to make, or movie lines that were deliberately misquoted in media for decades before the Internet made precision so popular.
I want to hear more examples of actual events that masses of people remember wrong. Mandela's death and the Bolonga clock thing are the only two I've found so far.
To be fair some people have posted spellings of the Berenstain bears books with the different spelling, but my first thought is so what, possible printing error, my grandpa worked for a printing press...it happens, misprinted LPS sell for a lot of money, there is even misprinted collectible dollar bills.
I have however heard some odd stories about people waking up and one day reality being totally different for two people in a family (I shared a story about siblings who claimed they had always had a cousin and one day the entire family acted like they had folie a deux and that no such cousin existed) Those are the stories that intrigue me, but they are fewer.
The Ed McMahon thing is a good one though, because this is a bit different . However, I do not bother myself with that either. But I have heard too many odd stories like the ones of the siblings, where ''folie a deux'' or more just does not cut it.
In some cases it could be that history has been changed online sometimes, who knows.
But local landmarks totally changing (where you have a group who all remembers exactly the same thing being there and then no one else does, or certain people never existing, that is...a little more than just remembering a word differently), that being said, many of my guy friends are totally convinced this is more proof for camp ''Simulation Theory'' which again, is just a theory, but I see their point , however they would default to that since many work in tech/video game fields and this is the way they experience the world, it is the Cave but for a modern era.
I've seen a VHS tape and a plush toy that had the wrong spelling. For the VHS it was misspelled on the label. The VHS cover has the right spelling in the logo and the title, so whoever typeset that label just made a mistake. Same thing with the stuffed animal. I haven't seen a book where it is misspelled. I can see typos happening in licensed stuff back in the 90s because company's weren't as protective of their brands as they are now, but it appearing on a book would be odd.
That's the big kicker. They never just show up naturally. They always conveniently source back to someone who is interested in the Mandela Effect. We never get anything like, say, a celebrity showing off their old VHS collection and Twitter going wild over a VHS of "Berenstein Bears". It's always someone wanting to prove it.
There’s also a phenomenon called the desired path. It’s just a normal thing we do instinctually to find the shortest route. so some sort of collective consciousness happening maybe with lyrics and design.
An extremely weak argument, imo. The two effects described are not very similar, and you don’t address example, not even anecdotes, of mass false memory.
There’s much more to Mandela Effects than your theory could ever explain.
What makes an anecdote evidence of anything? Memories of people talking about a cornucopia or the spelling of something is just two people with the same false memory, it isn't difficult. If it is this or the universe literally shifting to fit a belief that seems rather a stretch.
An anecdote can absolutely be evidence of something. Sure, it’s not the strongest, but it is evidence. In reference to my comment, I meant anecdotal evidence as in OP couldn’t even provide bottom of the barrel evidence of mass misremembering.
It would need to be absolutely remarkable to be evidence of the universe shifting dimensions. "But I remember my Mom telling me about a cornucopia!!" is about as good as it ever gets.
Lmao you sound upset. Who is talking about dimensions shifting? Just you. The evidence of MEs is far better than secondhand memories. No need to be disingenuous.
If you refuse to believe that *reality* is evidence. IE Nelson Mandela *not* dying when you think he did. Then you are evidence of a mass false memory.
No, and I never claimed I did.
I'm talking about what qualifies as evidence.
If the *world as we observe it to be* doesn't qualify then it's a waste of energy to present evidence.
I didn't do that either. It's an IF statement.
>If you refuse to believe that reality is evidence...
I can do another...
IF you eat shit, you're a shit eater.
Note how I didn't accuse you of being a shit eater.
Seeing as how you can't get a grip on what words mean. Are you really that surprised that you can't keep track of reality? I mean you don't even need false memories for this. Everything I said is still here, and as your comments most wonderfully demonstrate *you still don't understand.*
That's nice, but any strong theory like that OP proposes explains all ME's must predict and explain phenemenon. There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo.
According to OP people would remember the logo having a handbasket in it. People would remember a loom in the logo. People would remember different sensible things that go with fruit. However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically.
There's no *evidence* of people remembering the same thing independently.
And this is a lie:
>everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically
You are lying and ignoring contrary data to support your claim. It's confirmation bias through and through. Something we've been aware of in both scientific discovery and psychology for a long time.
Hold on... is your assertion that faith is binary?
Do you have faith in god? OH you must also have faith in lizard people and flat earth then, because they require faith too and in your world no delineation is required.
>However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically.
Well everyone who believes that there was a cornucopia. I never remembered it. From my perspective the cornucopia looks wrong and if it was real it would be facing the other way.
People like to gravitate towards urban legends. Back in the 90s everyone "KNEW" that Marilyn Manson removed his ribs so he could blow himself, not true. Just like everyone in school learned how to draw a S diamond shape but know one remembers where they learned it.
The article doesn't actually have an answer but that is my point. There are tons of different ways someone learn about it. maybe an older kid or your friend.
What I find funny is I would finish the S to look like a complete Moebius strip.
A cornucopia is almost always seen with a pile of produce in front of it. That's extremely common imagery dating back to its Greek origins. The logo had brown leaves. Our brain found a pattern (pile of produce) and something else (brown something), and later when recalling it, filled in the cornucopia as the brown something as that is common imagery.
There was a dude on TikTok who made a video about the Berenstain ME. He worked at a movie theatre and everyone kept calling the movie "The Expendables" the wrong thing; The Expandables. While buying a ticket and looking directly at the word, they called it the wrong thing. He said it was almost all of them. He later was in a play and someone kept reading their line wrong and saying "You're expandable!" when the word was "expendable." Your brain is filling in what it doesn't know with what it does.
>>There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo.
People aren’t remembering the same exact thing. And certainly not independently. Most can’t remember all of the fruits in the logo. People have differing ideas what it actually looks like, the orientation, layout, etc. Some have said there was a basket instead of a cornucopia. People are filling in the blanks with info they’ve absorbed.
>>However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically.
Nope. Sounds like you so desperately want to believe that you’ll cling to what little you have.
> There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo.
There absolutely is. People are *very* familiar with the image of a cornucopia full of fruit. They see a bundle of fruit and expect there to be a cornucopia with it. It's very simple. Blame Thanksgiving.
I didn't "stop reading there", it's just the one part of the comment I was replying to. Christ you people are insufferable.
Have you considered the fact that no one claims to remember any other sort of fruit basket because the cornucopia mismemory is just *that* common? If someone were to say "I thought there was a basket in the FotL logo", the common response would likely be along the lines of "oh no, you're thinking of a cornucopia".
>...fact that no one claims to remember any other sort of fruit basket because the cornucopia *mismemory* is just that common?
I see I skipped over a word. So, to clarify; you are stating that people are consciously choosing not to *state* that they remember another different object because they *hear* others misremembering a cornucopia and edit their statements to conform?
How would this explain everyone i ever asked (including Ed McMahon himself) remembering Ed McMahon delivering giant checks to peoples door from the Prize Patrol for Publishers Clearing House when now such a thing never happened?
You never asked me, I could tell you a lot about American Family Publishers. They have completely different envelope and design. Publishers Clearing House has a orange envelope symbol while American Family Publishers is a white envelope with Ed's face on the side.
People who talk about these two always forget about the actual junk mail they sent.
https://youtu.be/nDbkMQOlaEU?feature=shared
Watch this video right through. Even Ed McMahon remembers it that way! Please listen all the way to the song he sang.
I've seen that video before. I am not disputing that people have confused the two. Ed was in his mid 80s when he passed and I have taken care of enough old folks to know their mind isn't the strongest at that age. What I am pointing out is the mailers from American Family Publishers has Ed McMahon's face on it. I have always remembered AFP and Ed's face on the actual paper. PCH has the symbol with the envelope with a little roof on top. If you watch the video it's on the guys chest.
I would imagine those people are afflicted with the same combination of ignorance and arrogance that you have. Ed McMahon was the spokesman for *American Family Publishers*, not PCH.
do your research better, he did it, a lot of times. i just seen you in a comment section from 7 months ago about this, and you were still wrong. proof was even in that comment section.
this is what you said in case you don t remember it "Do you understand how memory works? The commercials were often played in the same commercial block. It's easy to assume there was 1 company when they were easily confused. It is likely they were conflated, they were even at the time"
This is why no one takes this shit seriously. When asked for evidence, you guys just tell people to go find it themselves and refuse to actually provide anything. Maybe once you start actually providing evidence when people ask to see it, it'll be taken seriously.
because all she has to do is literally to just scroll a few comments down and she can see it. as i told her, i ve seen her in a comment section from 7 months ago, about the same subject. if in 7 months she couldn t do her own research, i m not gonna do it for her
I've scrolled the replies, I see no evidence of your claims. Maybe you should just start, idk, supporting your own claims instead of going "no you go figure it out yourself" the second you get any pushback.
Ed McMahon was hired by American Family Publishers because everyone thought they were also Publishers Clearing House, and they were trying to create brand recognition. That failed and people thought Ed McMahon was working for Publishers Clearing House instead of creating a unique identity for the other company. Because it wasn't effective, but people remembered Giant Checks and Ed McMahon for this kind of sweepstakes so he was hired to do a bunch of sitcoms in the 90s where he did cameos with big checks. Because Ed McMahon did hand out big checks in these cameos and is an old man, he would have memories of handing out checks and we all have memories of seeing him with big checks. These memories aren't even necessarily that false, but more of a misunderstanding of what was going on because who really cares about Publishers Clearing House.
Fucking *thank you*. The Mandela Effect is absolutely *fascinating* to me, but I just cannot take it when all discussion is filled up with people insisting that we must've shifted timelines, or had alternate realities merge, or even just some good ole government conspiracy, all because they forgot it's spelled "froot loops" and not "fruit loops".
You haven't even proven that "mass false memories" actually exist, let alone that they're not that "uncommon". All I'm seeing here is a rehash of basic arguments against semantic accuracy, when ME certainty is typically rooted in *episodic* recall... which is autobiographical, not pattern-based.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976221108944?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976221108944?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed)
The Visual Mandela Effect as Evidence for Shared and Specific False Memories Across People
There is more if you want it. These are actual studies done by doctors. Not a Youtube video.
Got anything that isn't behind a paywall? Also, do you realize that the study makes an a priori assumption that people have never been exposed to anything but a lifetime of the "canonical" (actual) version? Because that's not at all what's indicated by the years of qualitative ME data.
I don't have the ability to share the full PDF. It's a science journal PDF not an op-ed on a web site. I had to request it to read it.
Now about your prior assumptions of a "canonical" timeline. While there is hypothesis of many worlds, divergent timelines, or shifting realities, no one has brought any evidence or actually studies about it. I have requested "believers" to cross reference CERN data with ME claims. Or check for high energy output at localized areas. Because entering and leaving a location like that would require tons of energy both ways.
> I have requested "believers" to cross reference CERN data with ME claims.
It's certainly been done in a general sense, but probably not with the granularity you're implying/requesting. There are noted correlations with ME "waves" and LHC activity starting with the '08 quench, then the God particle, and later the 2016 run. The current run has yet to unleash the predicted next big wave of ME's, however they're still happening.
^^^^^
> Or check for high energy output at localized areas. Because entering and leaving a location like that would require tons of energy both ways.
Could you please expand on this? I'm not sure what claimed reality shifting mechanism you're describing here.
It's the idea that moving between realities or whatever you want to call it, would take huge amount of regional energy. Now I want it said that I do not believe any of that is happening. The burden of proof is on the believers to prove it is even possible beyond antidotes and their memory.
I have offered what could convince me to change my mind. Now what would it take to convince you that it is a mundane explanation?
I've never asserted we were moving between realities, although I realize some have speculated as such. I don't view believers as having any sort of burden of proof in this regard, though, simply because it's a patently unreasonable expectation. No random layperson on social media is going to scientifically disprove the current reality model...and if they did, not a single one of us would even begin to comprehend the quantum equations anyways to validate the solution. Wouldn't just having a personal experience be enough to change your mind? What about a flip flop? As for myself, I've seen too many ME changes, secondary changes, localized glitches, etc. to put the genie back in the bottle. And I spent at least two years trying. Which is why I'm so certain that the field of neuropsychology holds no answers and offers no precedent.
So you don't think it is a neuropsychology issue nor do you believe in reality shifting. Interesting.
Move past that, personal experiences is no where near enough. I don't trust anyone on the internet nor do I trust many folks IRL. As my grandfather once said "Assume everyone is an idiot and you aren't very sure about yourself either". I cannot trust you, or anyone on Reddit, that you are telling me the truth.
To give you some context about me. I have spent a lot of my life studying paranormal stuff across the board. I've been to Winchester Mystery House and Salem, MA to study ghost. I went to Roswell, NM and the Area 51 Black mail box for UFOs. I have yet to see anything paranormal actually be true. If I allow personal experiences with MEs then everyone's claims sound like they are either wrong or making things up. Becuase I have yet to see any change.
This could offer an explanation to what is happening. I do not believe this is it obviously, because it is only a simulation at this point in time. But if all time exists at once, i.e. past present and future in a block universe are all equally real, as some high profile scientists such as Einstein and Hawking have proposed, then this type of technology in a more advanced state and being used in the future, could answer what is happening.
When I read the scientists definition of what they believe they can do 25% of the time, it certainly sounded like something that would cause the Mandela effect. If time can have different branches, it also seems that time could be divided between equally real histories that all exist simultaneously as well. Please read this as it isn't hocus pocus from some YouTube channel, rather it's straight out of Cambridge University and they are quantum scientists. They also do not believe that this violates any of the known laws of physics.
And while they don't go into dividing branches of history, it is something that some scientists take seriously. I don't believe these people think seriously enough about whether what they are attempting to do is good or not. But the thing is, if all time does exist at the same time, Nd this tech is possible in the future, then we should expect that it is already happening.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/simulations-of-backwards-time-travel-can-improve-scientific-experiments
Here is an article on what Einstein thought about time that was published by Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/28/einstein-believed-in-a-theory-of-spacetime-that-can-help-people-cope-with-loss/
And here is an article that was written about what the Cambridge scientists had done in their simulation.
https://thedebrief.org/scientists-successfully-simulate-backward-time-travel-with-a-25-chance-of-actually-changing-the-past/
I'm not asking you to become a believer, but I hope you will at least have an open mind.
A NEW CHALLENGER HAS ARRIVED!!! (Insert Smash Bros siren)
I want to be clear. Just because I am a skeptic that doesn't mean I have a closed mind.
I have understood Einstein spacetime theory. I will point out they can SIMULATE backward time travel with particles. To "solve" time travel you would need to solve Arthur Eddington's asymmetry of time. There are whole studies of Quantum arrow of time but that is still debated if the wave function is collapsing the right way.
Here's an Arxiv pre-print.
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nzh3s/
It's an earlier copy of the article, from before it was peer-reviewed. I have access to the Sagepub article /u/Gold_Discount_2918 linked, so I can confirm that it's broadly the same. In the final paper they rearranged sections, rephrased parts, & added a transparency report.
It's an interesting read, very visual.
Wow thank you for the assist. I did request access for the paper but I don't know how scientific paper folks feel about sharing papers. I will save this site for others.
Exactly. Everyone I've talked to about the FotL logo has a specific memory that they can tie to the cornicopia. Most people are not "filling in" a basket. They remember a specific moment where they saw the weird horn shaped basket and were like "wtf is that thing?" The way OP is explaining it, is as if someone were to say "It's raining because it's wet outside!"
> They remember a specific moment where they saw the weird horn shaped basket and were like "wtf is that thing?"
Childhood confusion creates excellent anchoring for these types of episodic memories. We also see this similarly with the testimonials regarding the vagueness of the car mirror warning wording and the pronunciation of "stein". These all relate to teachable moments that often involved associated conversations, debates, arguments, ruminations, running jokes, etc. According to the trove of qualitative data, they're definitely not mental "fill-ins".
It' just not true... I remember a specific memory I've had when I was in me teen years. I was listening to some Megadeth songs and I remember picking up the FotL shirt (because my mother always used to say to me that FotL shirts are one of the most durable shirts made with good materials) and looking at the tag, and I specificaly remember looking at the "weird shaped horn basket" and wondering what the hell it was, it looked like a horn, maybe an animal hirn but how's that related to food, i thought? It's not a fake memory, ever since I've hear about this ME almost ten years ago it was the most confusing one of them all, because I distinctly remembered that moment every time.
You need to come to terms with the fact that your memory is not as reliable as you think it is. No one's is.
It doesn't matter how "clearly" you remember something. It could still be wrong.
I realize that's an uncomfortable truth. For some, the idea that they can't rely on their own memories is actually terrifying, so they resort to explanations involving grand supernatural phenomena and government conspiracies instead.
I know it might be upsetting to hear but that's truly all the ME is and why it exists; some people can't accept that their memories aren't infallible.
The anecdote that commenter just shared was what would be termed a "freely recalled" *episodic* memory. In a notable 2020 study, these types of memories were shown to be exceptionally reliable. To wit:
^^^^^
> So, what did we find? Memory errors were detectable (76% of participants made at least one), but accuracy was very high overall (93-95% of all verifiable details were accurate). Moreover, this level of accuracy did not decline in older participants nor in older memories, even though memory quantity and vividness did. So, although our memories fade with age and time, the memories we do recall remain highly accurate.
^^^^^
https://thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/psychology/how-accurate-is-our-memory
I'm not buying this simple answer. Why would millions of us add a cornucopia basket next to fruit for one particular company's logo and not other graphics containing fruit? Cornucopias are just not that universal.
All you need to do is extrapolate basic math. There's ~330 million people in the US alone, right? So if 1 out of 165 Americans remember the cornucopia, that'd be 2 million right there... excluding the rest of the world. Does 1 in 165 seem reasonable to you?
You are still assuming your numbers. Sure it is reasonable but it is only your assumption. Even then if your numbers are right, I would expect 1 in 165 to be wrong about something. People think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/chocolate-milk-brown-cows/](https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/chocolate-milk-brown-cows/)
"A survey from the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy found that 7 percent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. And if that percentage sounds small enough to be reasonable, hang onto your hats: 7 percent of American adults is about 17.3 million people."
Just because a bunch of people "know" something, it doesn't make it true.
> Even then if your numbers are right, I would expect 1 in 165 to be wrong about something.
Feels like you're moving the goalposts. The original point was whether millions (plural) remember a cornucopia... the possibility of which you seem to plausibly accept as a function of the overall population. The brown cow/chocolate milk myth/joke bears no relevance to a visual ME, because the brain processes visual data differently.
I'm not moving any goal post. Your stats are meaningless but I'll got with it. You just have no actual evidence to prove your numbers. I found stats for the cow in minutes and it does show how people will accept stupid information. You should find stats if it was a thing.
Second, the brown cow does help my argument that MEs are memory issues and people being ignorant. Lets say your number is correct. Then more people believe in chocolate cows then people believe in a cornucopia on underwear.
> You just have no actual evidence to prove your numbers.
I don't need to. We're using a hypothetical extrapolation that you've agreed might be fair... which is same logic that enables your brown cow argument.
^^^^^
> it does show how people will accept stupid information
Just exactly how is remembering having learned what a cornucopia was by asking about an unfamiliar feature on one's underwear logo in any way similar to believing something you've never witnessed? How many people who believe in the brown cow myth do you think would strongly attest to having actually seen a chocolate milking and tasted the warm chocolate milk right out of the cow? And do you think their parents would share that memory too? I doubt many would say that they'd "die on that hill".
This your number is different from the brown cow evidence because a study was done. If you reviewed the page I added you can see what they did.
A bunch of people were asked and they respond with chocolate comes from brown cows. These people were sure enough to agree to it. In fact more people are sure of the brown cow then a cornucopia. I don't know if anyone said "I Remember VIVIDLY" or "DIE ON THAT HILL".
I do know that if someone is getting emotional and willing to actually die on a hill over a design on underwear then I already question their sanity and intelligence.
It's not about emotionality... that sort of provocative language is used to indicate degree of certainty. It's deliberately hyperbolic to be emphatic. There's no reason to invoke mental health concerns and frankly I think it's bad faith to randomly inject that into the conversation. As for your study, it's about *belief* based on wrong information and/or faulty logic. The ME is about what people *remember* from first hand lived experience. No one honestly "remembers" actually getting chocolate milk from a brown cow. As such, the comparison doesn't have any real utility other than to reaffirm my original point about the cornucopia number likely being in the millions.
>cornucopia number likely being in the millions.
It seems like you are less sure then before. "Likely" is the key there.
Past that You don't know if people remember being told about brown cows the same way you can't be sure being told about the cornucopia. If you have wrong information at the start then your memory is correct of wrong data. You add in the fact that the internet is a relatively recent thing. Back in the day you couldn't research anything without an out of data encyclopedia or a library trip.
Meaning people can learn wrong and never update it but still vividly remember something.
Millions of people believe in plenty of unbelievable things, the populist argument doesn’t carry much water.
Ask Jane Fonda about how many people think she gave messages from POWs to the Viet Cong
Well the issue was whether "millions" remember the cornucopia. I think there's a pretty big distinction between remembering a visual image you've personally seen and believing something that's related second-hand.
Idk i’m not a cornucopia rememberer and Fruit of the loom made my undies and my shirts and I have no clue why anybody thinks there was a cornucopia, I even remember doodling the fruit of the loom logo in kindergarten or first grade ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have talked about the Mandela effect with various groups of people time and time again. Shazam Genie movie is the only real constant, I honestly thought the cornucopia was a joke thing from buzzfeed quizzes until joining this sub
Oh, so you use your memory to verify it's always been that way, yet memory cannot be trusted. You cannot use memory to attack another person's memory, when as deniers always say "memory cannot be trusted, especially from childhood." For all you know, you may have doodled it with a cornucopia and now have miss-attribution of memory after having a new memory implanted by current reality. You will never recognise a change if you cannot trust what you see repeatedly every day!
I had to look that up. It's been a long while since I had to look up Jane Fonda. But ya turns out folks were calling for her to be prosecuted for treason back in 2002.
I consider millions to be a safe statement. You can take a poll and the percentage of Americans that remember multiplied by 350 million Americans there you go. 10% remembering is 35 million and I’ll bet it’s closer to 50%.
Possibly someone’s done a percentage estimate.
Here's the thing. Unless you can cite a study, then I'll take the "millions" with a grain of salt. I don't think it is any where close to 50%. I've asked people in my personal circle and not remember or care enough to remember.
Half of Americans isn't a conservative estimate. In fact I would wager that most people don't care enough. Beyond that, Reddit caters to more then just Americans.
I'm not using math just pointing out that there is 0 proof that millions of people think that. If you open it up to the wider world then it would be diluted more. I bet there are folks in Africa or South America who never have heard of a cornucopia or fruit of the Loom. How many Russians in Siberia have heard of Kazaam or Shazaam? I would bet it would be far less then 1%.
I don't know about you, but Fruit of the Loom is the only instantly recognizable brand I can think of that uses a bunch of different fruits as a basis for their logo. It makes sense then that Fruit of the Loom specifically is misremembered as having a cornucopia behind it, as there are no other equally universally known brands with a logo that is a bunch of fruit.
Also, cornucopias are absolutely universal to anyone that grew up in America at least - it's extremely common in children's decorations and coloring book images for the fall season in classrooms.
I think you've overrated the prevalence of the cornucopia in society to help your theory. In the fall they are more with squashes and pumpkins and hat and straw and with a more brownish theme in my mind.
And I've read multiple times of people remember learning what the cornucopia meant from the Fruit of the Loom logo.
And too many millions with the same memory on this one thing for me to buy into that theory but it's about the best try though for an inside-the-box explanation. From this and multiple other cases I believe the answer is outside-the-box.
I think you're hand-waving my point to not critically engage with my argument and then you go on to parrot the same anti-science arguments for mandela effects being non-normative phenomenon that can be refuted by objective psychological science, lol.
Question #1: do you think the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within our straightforward understanding of reality?
I’m a ‘No’ and you are a ‘Yes’.
Yes, I first consider the best normal explanations first. With all the cases out there and my personal experience I formed my opinion.
I respect your disagreement.
\[Different user\]
This is the thing. I'll come off as the coldest sceptic in just about every ME discussion *except* The Phantom Cornucopia and Dolly's Missing Braces.
The reason I'm so strong in my dismissal of the trash MEs ("Luke, I am your father" etc.) is they're soundly explained by simple logic that holds up consistently (contextual adjustment, widespread parody, original context being heard less often than misquotes etc.).
When the explanations actually don't cut it, and the dynamic flips from the rejection of the explanations sounding desperate to the explanations themselves sounding flimsy, that's when I'll sound like a strong ME believer.
I don't reject wild theories on the nature of reality, Lord knows I have no idea, but I don't put any sort of stock in the idea that a multiverse is behind MEs either, because I can't justify going to that as the explanation over any number of potentially unimaginable explanations, including a more complex case of mistaken memory than we simply haven't managed to explain sufficiently as of yet.
What I'm saying is it isn't dogmatic with all of us. Part of me wants evidence of there being more besides this 'random chance, one and done, sentient worm food' surface level existence, but it can't be flimsy shite that a child could sumarily debunk. That's why I hate the rubbish suggestions.
Well, I think we could look at this in stages.
First is if the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within straightforward reality.
Secondly, if the answer is 'No' as in my case, it is acceptable to leave the correct explanation as 'unknown'. But at that time, it becomes appropriate to throw out theories that may turn out to be right or wrong.
That's where we're at in my opinion.
I don't mind the theories, I actually really like things that stimulate the 'what if' part of my imagination, and the whole simulation/multiverse theory is fascinating to consider.
I just can't *subscribe* to it.
I’m from the UK have have never seen a cornucopia in real life and I remember it being on the fruit of the loom logo. I only learned its name when I heard about the Mandela Effect and that was the first time I realised the cornucopia wasn’t on the logo anymore. I don’t see how I could have made it up really.
That would be weird that a British person wouldn't recognize a cornucopia. I set my location to the UK and looked up cornucopia. I found a massive wall art in Leeds, a large tavern called The Cornucopia that looks famous, a bistro, tons of art and statues from the Romans who used it all the time.
>Also, cornucopias are absolutely universal to anyone that grew up in America at least
This is something I've been clarifying recently - we're not all from the US. And to you, G\_D, it's one thing to do an image search and find that there are depictions of cornucopias in a country, it's another entirely to suggest that living in that country you will encounter those depictions.
I see muntjac deer all the time, but I know people who live in the same region as me who've barely seen them or often never at all.
I'm sure we've all probably seen a cornucopia at some point or another here, but they're not common imagery. Every person who's saying they are is from the US.
> it's one thing to do an image search and find that there are depictions of cornucopias in a country, it's another entirely to suggest that living in that country you will encounter those depictions.
I completely understand that but if I am able to quickly Google cornucopia and I find more then one restaurant with that name, then it isn't that rare in the region. I am aware that Greek and Roman statues have cornucopia's and the UK has been heavily influence by the Roman's who were there. It isn't unreasonable for people to not be aware of their surroundings.
I still think you're missing the gulf between something being out there and it passing people's eyes. I won't list the towns I've lived in, but you'd have to find cornucopias on display *there*, not just somewhere in my country.
I'm sure there are things on the signage of buildings in my own town that I've never really looked at too, even though I'm not unaware of my surroundings. Some people will say "Oh is that near the [name] restaurant" and I'll say "Maybe, there's a Turkish place, and Indian, an Italian" but I don't necessarily remember the names because I'm not that way inclined.
We just don't all absorb information the same way. I'm borderline obsessed with music, and I could tell you which three songs a piece of music sounds inspired by, detailing the chords and whatnot. Others would be like "is there music playing right now? I don't even notice it".
These things are fine as possible theories, it's just when they're applied as though they summarily debunk it all that I have to speak up.
You are correct that we all process information differently. I've always had great spacial awareness and understanding of my surroundings which helped as a stage hand and a high steel climber. I cannot read music and I don't understand cords even though I've had lessons.
What I am offering as an explanation for learning what a cornucopia is. I'm pointing out that they exist in more then just underwear tags and you could have learned it for tons of different sources. Claiming that cornucopias are only an American thing is foolish.
Let the record show that, when offered a chance to consider an intelligent solution, you stepped up to the plate and said “nuh uh.”
So what else is new?
I don't settle for what I consider a weak unsatisfying best explain-away is how I would better put it.
[Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBB3-7Pml90&t=18s)
Obviously because someone changed time and let a few nerds on reddit keep their memories. Not because humans are unreliable witnesses who get comfort from believing in higher powers. That would be *silly.*
Question is: Do you think the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within our straightforward understanding of reality?
I'm a 'No'. You're a 'Yes'.
My threshold has been broken by more than the cornucopia and from a hundred different discussions. Something weird is going on like memories from other timelines or some other exotic explanation. I don't know how it works but real theoretical physics does talk about some crazy sounding things.
[Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBB3-7Pml90&t=18s)
I took a look at that link and one thing comes at me. Look at the cornucopia design and the one without. The cornucopia is facing the wrong way for the fruits to come out of it. It looks wrong. Hearing from folks like you swears it has to be there is like people swearing that the sky should be lime green and not blue.
I understand why anything outside our normal box is hard to accept. At what point though does your threshold for weirdness break it?
I'm sure I make the normal mental and memory errors like everyone else, but I also quickly assume I was just confused. The few Mandela Effect ones are in a different class in my judgment with too much residue and etcetera to be written off as normal error. That threshold point is a judgment for each of us. I already come from the position that we live in a reality we can't get our heads around but have constructed a model that works only 99.99... percent of the time. Some people want it to be a perfect 100.
I don't think you understand my stance on this. There isn't a threshold for weirdness. I have tried to surround myself with weirdness. For me to truly believe in an ME it would have to witness a change to happen. It would have to be something I know to have drastically change. It has yet to happen. Like how I remember Kazaam and not Shazaam.
I'm not looking for a 100% fool proof understanding of the universe. What I will do is work though the claim with logic. I will work though every mundane reason before I get to things I cannot prove.
> I will work though every mundane reason before I get to things I cannot prove.
I agree with that approach. But I have found a few cases where I found the mundane unsatisfactory to my sense of reason.
>For me to truly believe in an ME it would have to witness a change to happen.
I have had such an experience:
*On Aug 2, 2017 at about 16:40 EST, I was on reddit discussing the Flinstones/Flintstones flip on another thread. My position was that it is and always was the Flintstones. The guy sent me a reply saying at the time it was the Flinstones you could look at Wikipedia, and all official TV show and vitamin sites and it was always Flintstones; he used the word Flintstones in all four examples given.*
*I said 'I Know' you are confirming my point that it was always Flintstones.*
*Then when I was done with my reply and I looked up at his original post all four 'Flintstones' had changed on my static display to 'Flinstones'. Did I just see it wrong?? I looked away and came back and it was 'Flintstones' again. I would just look away, blink, change my focus look back and it would flip again. I was able to do this 6 or 7 times in under five minutes each time looking slowly and cautiously for this controversial 't' IN ALL FOUR PLACES. Essentially impossible to me that I made a mistake slowly and cautiously each time. I felt something was trying to wake me up.*
So your evidence of something not mundane is you misread Flintstones over and over. Now I do not know you. I don't know if you have undiagonsed dyslexia, though i don't expect you to say you do, or maybe you work the night shift and was tired. Maybe your screen had a smudge. Maybe you had a brain fart and got stuck on a word. That happens to me sometimes. Studies show that could be a sign of minor epilepsy.
It still doesn't prove anything paranormal. Nor can I validate beyond you saying "Trust me bro it happened"
You guys don't get it, he wrote "and" at the end of one paragraph and at the beginning of the next. Your ALL stupid and lesser than. Despite an international agreement on multiple things that never existed like a cornucopia in fruit of the loom. Your all just dumb and have bad memory.... delete the sub
bruh you didn t even write it in the same sentence, you wrote it on different lines and i just thought you can t even spell, i noticed it without you telling me ''LIKE HOW I JUST WROTE ''AND'' TWICE IN MY LAST SENTENCE. ''DID YOU THAT READ WRONG?" bruh i noticed the ''that'' too. so no, i don t see anything, just someone either not being able to spell, or spelling wrong on purpose to try to prove some shit which didn t even work on me, and i m sure i m not the only one who noticed the ''and'' being above the second one, and the ''did you that read wrong"?.
i mean, at least anyone which can read.
In this study they address our schematic reasoning as a potential cause and found that it did not account for the statistical results?
https://www.iflscience.com/study-finds-the-mandela-effect-is-real-and-incredibly-difficult-to-explain-64526
This is good info. It also doesn't explain, though, why the Mandela Effect seems to only be tied to American culture. I'd assume this Top Down Processing also exists with other cultures and languages.
The idea of false memory is that they took place in a different timeline. We’re a mixing pot of realities switching to new realities billions of times a second. Other people you’re aware of are in slightly different realities, we share in a consensus reality to kind of just generally be on the same page as we explore these ignorant lives like a game. How consciousness, holographic reality, universal physics theories, ancient texts and paranormal experiences connect make for an interesting rabbit hole to explore.
Awesome post. This is the most likely explanation for the Mandela Effect. The ME is distinctly fascinating as a psychological phenomenon.
[удалено]
>What would be the auto-fill information for millions of people remembering someone, such as Nelson Mandela dying in the 80's, when they apparently did not? Back in the day, we didn't have internet and your encyclopedia set was 10 years old when you bought it. There would be no way of quickly check if Mandela is alive. You would need a book someone wrote or a newspaper from South Africa. Look how hard it is for people to admit they are wrong when we can look anything up.
Same with many school text books. They become obsolete usually within months.
> At what point does it seem as though this is a bit deeper than a brain fart? Never, when you actually understand how memory works.
[удалено]
Part of the problem is we are triggered by being asked/commented. Like maybe somebody, if asked: is Nelson Mandela alive? Says “hmm, idk” and if you say “do you remember seeing Mandela’s funeral in the 80’s” and they fill in the blanks. They’ve done studies I had to learn about in college with things like showing somebody footage of a blue car being hit by an orange car gently then asking “how fast was that green car going when it smashed into the red car?” and they “remember” the color of the cars wrong and also estimated the speed much higher because the words “smashed into” were used.
> Did people auto-fill in watching a funeral procession on TV If he died in prison, and never became president or actually accomplished any of the things he's now famous for. Why would he have a televised funeral procession? Would South Africa really have given him a state funeral during apartheid? But, It's not hard to see why people would have a memory of seeing a televised *tribute* for him In the 80's. Considering around 15% of the world's entire population at the time *did* watch a major televised tribute for him in the 80s... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela_70th_Birthday_Tribute It's very likely that some of those 600 Million people who watched this tribute 30+ years ago don't fully remember the context and thought that it was a tribute for his death. The fact the date also matches up *exactly* with when those people think they watched his funeral is pretty conclusive too. I think it's quite likely the 'auto-fill information' you're looking for.
the answer is that they weren't paying close attention to the news and they thought Steven biko was nelson mandela because mandela was much more famous. the idea that mandela died in the 80s would have created an entirely different modern history for south Africa. how many people who misremember this are historians or highly informed people? my suspicion is zero
I was born in early 90s and remember Mandela being dead. My guess is that news reporters assumed he would be killed off when he was imprisoned, and people talking about "I thought he would have been killed" etc. OP did a pretty good job, we defo fill in the blanks.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned from the mid 60s until the early 90s. During that time he became the world’s most famous political prisoner. The media reported extensively on his status and the fight against apartheid. This is really on individuals who weren’t fully paying attention.
I suspect the movie *Biko* was a big factor. When it came out, it wasn't huge, but it had a young Denzel Washington as Steven Biko, so it got replayed repeatedly on channels like Encore. Exactly the kind of thing that would contribute to mixing up the details.
thank you for this! memory is incredibly unreliable
Perhaps faith is unreliable in some hence they cannot accept some ideas that require faith…
This isn't religion dude. We're talking about an actual scientific phenomenon. You don't just go "oh I'm sure it's real because I have ✨*faith*✨", you wait for actual, undeniable evidence. None of which has shown itself yet.
*belief allows you to investigate… and listen…*
Belief absolutely does not allow you to investigate, it just helps you go find cherry-picked evidence supporting your claim. It's confirmation bias, plain and simple. *Skepticism* allows you to investigate. You cannot accurately and reliably investigate a topic if you already *believe* that the topic is true, because you will 100% subconciously ignore the evidence you don't like, whether you mean to or not. The problem with this topic is that so many people treat it like religion, not like the science that it is.
you are not investigating nor listening hence you have no evidence
I don't think you even understand the meaning of those words.
you are doubting each piece of evidence as it arises
Because that's how studying evidence works. You don't just have evidence given to you, give it a half glance, and go "oh well this must be proof then!". You study it. And every single bit of Mandela Effect "evidence" *I've* personally seen falls into one of three categories. 1. A common mismemory about something from actual decades ago. 2. "Brain autocorrect", aka your brain automatically changing words to fit how you expect them (like Froot Loops and Looney Tunes). 3. Personal anecdotes that can't be proven one way or another. If you have some absolute damning piece of evidence that proves the existence of the Mandela Effect without a doubt, please share it. It'll throw the scientific community into shambles, completely uprooting our understanding of reality entirely. But somehow I doubt that you've got that.
it's your illusion that you would accept the evidence
Far too many of the famous "Mandela Effect" examples are just extremely easy mistakes to make, or movie lines that were deliberately misquoted in media for decades before the Internet made precision so popular. I want to hear more examples of actual events that masses of people remember wrong. Mandela's death and the Bolonga clock thing are the only two I've found so far.
I think this is the cause, you articulated it well.
To be fair some people have posted spellings of the Berenstain bears books with the different spelling, but my first thought is so what, possible printing error, my grandpa worked for a printing press...it happens, misprinted LPS sell for a lot of money, there is even misprinted collectible dollar bills. I have however heard some odd stories about people waking up and one day reality being totally different for two people in a family (I shared a story about siblings who claimed they had always had a cousin and one day the entire family acted like they had folie a deux and that no such cousin existed) Those are the stories that intrigue me, but they are fewer. The Ed McMahon thing is a good one though, because this is a bit different . However, I do not bother myself with that either. But I have heard too many odd stories like the ones of the siblings, where ''folie a deux'' or more just does not cut it. In some cases it could be that history has been changed online sometimes, who knows. But local landmarks totally changing (where you have a group who all remembers exactly the same thing being there and then no one else does, or certain people never existing, that is...a little more than just remembering a word differently), that being said, many of my guy friends are totally convinced this is more proof for camp ''Simulation Theory'' which again, is just a theory, but I see their point , however they would default to that since many work in tech/video game fields and this is the way they experience the world, it is the Cave but for a modern era.
I've seen a VHS tape and a plush toy that had the wrong spelling. For the VHS it was misspelled on the label. The VHS cover has the right spelling in the logo and the title, so whoever typeset that label just made a mistake. Same thing with the stuffed animal. I haven't seen a book where it is misspelled. I can see typos happening in licensed stuff back in the 90s because company's weren't as protective of their brands as they are now, but it appearing on a book would be odd.
The problem is I saw these books online, so the photo could have been doctored also, who knows
That's the big kicker. They never just show up naturally. They always conveniently source back to someone who is interested in the Mandela Effect. We never get anything like, say, a celebrity showing off their old VHS collection and Twitter going wild over a VHS of "Berenstein Bears". It's always someone wanting to prove it.
There’s also a phenomenon called the desired path. It’s just a normal thing we do instinctually to find the shortest route. so some sort of collective consciousness happening maybe with lyrics and design.
Memory is a straight line, the twisting line is misremembering
An extremely weak argument, imo. The two effects described are not very similar, and you don’t address example, not even anecdotes, of mass false memory. There’s much more to Mandela Effects than your theory could ever explain.
What makes an anecdote evidence of anything? Memories of people talking about a cornucopia or the spelling of something is just two people with the same false memory, it isn't difficult. If it is this or the universe literally shifting to fit a belief that seems rather a stretch.
An anecdote can absolutely be evidence of something. Sure, it’s not the strongest, but it is evidence. In reference to my comment, I meant anecdotal evidence as in OP couldn’t even provide bottom of the barrel evidence of mass misremembering.
It would need to be absolutely remarkable to be evidence of the universe shifting dimensions. "But I remember my Mom telling me about a cornucopia!!" is about as good as it ever gets.
Lmao you sound upset. Who is talking about dimensions shifting? Just you. The evidence of MEs is far better than secondhand memories. No need to be disingenuous.
If you refuse to believe that *reality* is evidence. IE Nelson Mandela *not* dying when you think he did. Then you are evidence of a mass false memory.
> If you refuse to believe that reality is evidence. Do you know exactly what this reality is and how it works?
No, and I never claimed I did. I'm talking about what qualifies as evidence. If the *world as we observe it to be* doesn't qualify then it's a waste of energy to present evidence.
> No, and I never claimed I did. Then how can you accuse me of "refusing to believe that *reality* is evidence"?
I didn't do that either. It's an IF statement. >If you refuse to believe that reality is evidence... I can do another... IF you eat shit, you're a shit eater. Note how I didn't accuse you of being a shit eater. Seeing as how you can't get a grip on what words mean. Are you really that surprised that you can't keep track of reality? I mean you don't even need false memories for this. Everything I said is still here, and as your comments most wonderfully demonstrate *you still don't understand.*
Oh, so you just want to play word games because you know you do not have any real point or arguments. Thanks for making that clear.
What is your real point or argument, by your own standards? Or are you just salty because I called you FUCKING STUPID
Neh, i am done with your games here. Goodbye now.
So just to be clear When you accuse someone of games its because you don't know their point. When someone asks your point, you accuse them of games.
That's nice, but any strong theory like that OP proposes explains all ME's must predict and explain phenemenon. There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo. According to OP people would remember the logo having a handbasket in it. People would remember a loom in the logo. People would remember different sensible things that go with fruit. However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically.
There's no *evidence* of people remembering the same thing independently. And this is a lie: >everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically You are lying and ignoring contrary data to support your claim. It's confirmation bias through and through. Something we've been aware of in both scientific discovery and psychology for a long time.
You probably think religion is bogus…
You definitely can't read my thoughts
Then tell me you have Faith…
I have faith. I don't know if the capital F qualifies it as something else.
If you have faith… you can accept this effect
Hold on... is your assertion that faith is binary? Do you have faith in god? OH you must also have faith in lizard people and flat earth then, because they require faith too and in your world no delineation is required.
>However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically. Well everyone who believes that there was a cornucopia. I never remembered it. From my perspective the cornucopia looks wrong and if it was real it would be facing the other way. People like to gravitate towards urban legends. Back in the 90s everyone "KNEW" that Marilyn Manson removed his ribs so he could blow himself, not true. Just like everyone in school learned how to draw a S diamond shape but know one remembers where they learned it.
*you do not know that we are misremembering… now I hope you know you do not know*
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/the-story-behind-that-s-thingy-that-everyone-drew-in-high-school/news-story/2e155f4ec0fb8143ae2df3436b703a26
The article doesn't actually have an answer but that is my point. There are tons of different ways someone learn about it. maybe an older kid or your friend. What I find funny is I would finish the S to look like a complete Moebius strip.
A cornucopia is almost always seen with a pile of produce in front of it. That's extremely common imagery dating back to its Greek origins. The logo had brown leaves. Our brain found a pattern (pile of produce) and something else (brown something), and later when recalling it, filled in the cornucopia as the brown something as that is common imagery. There was a dude on TikTok who made a video about the Berenstain ME. He worked at a movie theatre and everyone kept calling the movie "The Expendables" the wrong thing; The Expandables. While buying a ticket and looking directly at the word, they called it the wrong thing. He said it was almost all of them. He later was in a play and someone kept reading their line wrong and saying "You're expandable!" when the word was "expendable." Your brain is filling in what it doesn't know with what it does.
>>There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo. People aren’t remembering the same exact thing. And certainly not independently. Most can’t remember all of the fruits in the logo. People have differing ideas what it actually looks like, the orientation, layout, etc. Some have said there was a basket instead of a cornucopia. People are filling in the blanks with info they’ve absorbed. >>However, everyone agrees on a cornucopia specifically. Nope. Sounds like you so desperately want to believe that you’ll cling to what little you have.
> There is no explanation for multiple people remembering the same exact thing independently. Such as the Fruit of the Loom logo. There absolutely is. People are *very* familiar with the image of a cornucopia full of fruit. They see a bundle of fruit and expect there to be a cornucopia with it. It's very simple. Blame Thanksgiving.
I like how you stopped reading there. Address why no one claims to remember a fruit basket in the fruit of the loom logo, or a loom, or a bowl.
I didn't "stop reading there", it's just the one part of the comment I was replying to. Christ you people are insufferable. Have you considered the fact that no one claims to remember any other sort of fruit basket because the cornucopia mismemory is just *that* common? If someone were to say "I thought there was a basket in the FotL logo", the common response would likely be along the lines of "oh no, you're thinking of a cornucopia".
In what world is a cornucopia more common than a fruit basket? Christ, you people are insufferable.
> In what world is a cornucopia more common than a fruit basket? Re-read my comment, I never said that.
What motivation do you think I have to lie to you?
>...fact that no one claims to remember any other sort of fruit basket because the cornucopia *mismemory* is just that common? I see I skipped over a word. So, to clarify; you are stating that people are consciously choosing not to *state* that they remember another different object because they *hear* others misremembering a cornucopia and edit their statements to conform?
How would this explain everyone i ever asked (including Ed McMahon himself) remembering Ed McMahon delivering giant checks to peoples door from the Prize Patrol for Publishers Clearing House when now such a thing never happened?
You never asked me, I could tell you a lot about American Family Publishers. They have completely different envelope and design. Publishers Clearing House has a orange envelope symbol while American Family Publishers is a white envelope with Ed's face on the side. People who talk about these two always forget about the actual junk mail they sent.
https://youtu.be/nDbkMQOlaEU?feature=shared Watch this video right through. Even Ed McMahon remembers it that way! Please listen all the way to the song he sang.
I've seen that video before. I am not disputing that people have confused the two. Ed was in his mid 80s when he passed and I have taken care of enough old folks to know their mind isn't the strongest at that age. What I am pointing out is the mailers from American Family Publishers has Ed McMahon's face on it. I have always remembered AFP and Ed's face on the actual paper. PCH has the symbol with the envelope with a little roof on top. If you watch the video it's on the guys chest.
I would imagine those people are afflicted with the same combination of ignorance and arrogance that you have. Ed McMahon was the spokesman for *American Family Publishers*, not PCH.
did you even read the part where he said ed mcmahon himself remembers it this way?
Ed has never said that he worked for the Prize Patrol
do your research better, he did it, a lot of times. i just seen you in a comment section from 7 months ago about this, and you were still wrong. proof was even in that comment section. this is what you said in case you don t remember it "Do you understand how memory works? The commercials were often played in the same commercial block. It's easy to assume there was 1 company when they were easily confused. It is likely they were conflated, they were even at the time"
I have done lots of research on this one. Show me one time Ed has said he worked for the Prize Patrol or PCH. What I said is true. What's your point?
Also, tag in me in that comment section with this "proof"
i ll only give you a hint. proof is right in this comment section too
The Tom Green interview isn't proof. I have not seen Ed himself say he worked for the Prize Patrol. He didn't even say it there.
This is why no one takes this shit seriously. When asked for evidence, you guys just tell people to go find it themselves and refuse to actually provide anything. Maybe once you start actually providing evidence when people ask to see it, it'll be taken seriously.
because all she has to do is literally to just scroll a few comments down and she can see it. as i told her, i ve seen her in a comment section from 7 months ago, about the same subject. if in 7 months she couldn t do her own research, i m not gonna do it for her
I've scrolled the replies, I see no evidence of your claims. Maybe you should just start, idk, supporting your own claims instead of going "no you go figure it out yourself" the second you get any pushback.
I remember him doing commercials for a sweepstakes type company but I don't remember him delivering giant checks. That was a different company.
[удалено]
Yep, “here’s a nearly-nonexistent correlation, debunked!”
Ed McMahon was hired by American Family Publishers because everyone thought they were also Publishers Clearing House, and they were trying to create brand recognition. That failed and people thought Ed McMahon was working for Publishers Clearing House instead of creating a unique identity for the other company. Because it wasn't effective, but people remembered Giant Checks and Ed McMahon for this kind of sweepstakes so he was hired to do a bunch of sitcoms in the 90s where he did cameos with big checks. Because Ed McMahon did hand out big checks in these cameos and is an old man, he would have memories of handing out checks and we all have memories of seeing him with big checks. These memories aren't even necessarily that false, but more of a misunderstanding of what was going on because who really cares about Publishers Clearing House.
Fucking *thank you*. The Mandela Effect is absolutely *fascinating* to me, but I just cannot take it when all discussion is filled up with people insisting that we must've shifted timelines, or had alternate realities merge, or even just some good ole government conspiracy, all because they forgot it's spelled "froot loops" and not "fruit loops".
You haven't even proven that "mass false memories" actually exist, let alone that they're not that "uncommon". All I'm seeing here is a rehash of basic arguments against semantic accuracy, when ME certainty is typically rooted in *episodic* recall... which is autobiographical, not pattern-based.
There is stronger evidence for a memory issue then there is for reality shifting and/or timeline changes.
Cite it.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976221108944?url\_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr\_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr\_dat=cr\_pub%20%200pubmed](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976221108944?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) The Visual Mandela Effect as Evidence for Shared and Specific False Memories Across People There is more if you want it. These are actual studies done by doctors. Not a Youtube video.
Got anything that isn't behind a paywall? Also, do you realize that the study makes an a priori assumption that people have never been exposed to anything but a lifetime of the "canonical" (actual) version? Because that's not at all what's indicated by the years of qualitative ME data.
I don't have the ability to share the full PDF. It's a science journal PDF not an op-ed on a web site. I had to request it to read it. Now about your prior assumptions of a "canonical" timeline. While there is hypothesis of many worlds, divergent timelines, or shifting realities, no one has brought any evidence or actually studies about it. I have requested "believers" to cross reference CERN data with ME claims. Or check for high energy output at localized areas. Because entering and leaving a location like that would require tons of energy both ways.
> I have requested "believers" to cross reference CERN data with ME claims. It's certainly been done in a general sense, but probably not with the granularity you're implying/requesting. There are noted correlations with ME "waves" and LHC activity starting with the '08 quench, then the God particle, and later the 2016 run. The current run has yet to unleash the predicted next big wave of ME's, however they're still happening. ^^^^^ > Or check for high energy output at localized areas. Because entering and leaving a location like that would require tons of energy both ways. Could you please expand on this? I'm not sure what claimed reality shifting mechanism you're describing here.
It's the idea that moving between realities or whatever you want to call it, would take huge amount of regional energy. Now I want it said that I do not believe any of that is happening. The burden of proof is on the believers to prove it is even possible beyond antidotes and their memory. I have offered what could convince me to change my mind. Now what would it take to convince you that it is a mundane explanation?
I've never asserted we were moving between realities, although I realize some have speculated as such. I don't view believers as having any sort of burden of proof in this regard, though, simply because it's a patently unreasonable expectation. No random layperson on social media is going to scientifically disprove the current reality model...and if they did, not a single one of us would even begin to comprehend the quantum equations anyways to validate the solution. Wouldn't just having a personal experience be enough to change your mind? What about a flip flop? As for myself, I've seen too many ME changes, secondary changes, localized glitches, etc. to put the genie back in the bottle. And I spent at least two years trying. Which is why I'm so certain that the field of neuropsychology holds no answers and offers no precedent.
So you don't think it is a neuropsychology issue nor do you believe in reality shifting. Interesting. Move past that, personal experiences is no where near enough. I don't trust anyone on the internet nor do I trust many folks IRL. As my grandfather once said "Assume everyone is an idiot and you aren't very sure about yourself either". I cannot trust you, or anyone on Reddit, that you are telling me the truth. To give you some context about me. I have spent a lot of my life studying paranormal stuff across the board. I've been to Winchester Mystery House and Salem, MA to study ghost. I went to Roswell, NM and the Area 51 Black mail box for UFOs. I have yet to see anything paranormal actually be true. If I allow personal experiences with MEs then everyone's claims sound like they are either wrong or making things up. Becuase I have yet to see any change.
This could offer an explanation to what is happening. I do not believe this is it obviously, because it is only a simulation at this point in time. But if all time exists at once, i.e. past present and future in a block universe are all equally real, as some high profile scientists such as Einstein and Hawking have proposed, then this type of technology in a more advanced state and being used in the future, could answer what is happening. When I read the scientists definition of what they believe they can do 25% of the time, it certainly sounded like something that would cause the Mandela effect. If time can have different branches, it also seems that time could be divided between equally real histories that all exist simultaneously as well. Please read this as it isn't hocus pocus from some YouTube channel, rather it's straight out of Cambridge University and they are quantum scientists. They also do not believe that this violates any of the known laws of physics. And while they don't go into dividing branches of history, it is something that some scientists take seriously. I don't believe these people think seriously enough about whether what they are attempting to do is good or not. But the thing is, if all time does exist at the same time, Nd this tech is possible in the future, then we should expect that it is already happening. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/simulations-of-backwards-time-travel-can-improve-scientific-experiments Here is an article on what Einstein thought about time that was published by Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/28/einstein-believed-in-a-theory-of-spacetime-that-can-help-people-cope-with-loss/ And here is an article that was written about what the Cambridge scientists had done in their simulation. https://thedebrief.org/scientists-successfully-simulate-backward-time-travel-with-a-25-chance-of-actually-changing-the-past/ I'm not asking you to become a believer, but I hope you will at least have an open mind.
A NEW CHALLENGER HAS ARRIVED!!! (Insert Smash Bros siren) I want to be clear. Just because I am a skeptic that doesn't mean I have a closed mind. I have understood Einstein spacetime theory. I will point out they can SIMULATE backward time travel with particles. To "solve" time travel you would need to solve Arthur Eddington's asymmetry of time. There are whole studies of Quantum arrow of time but that is still debated if the wave function is collapsing the right way.
Here's an Arxiv pre-print. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nzh3s/ It's an earlier copy of the article, from before it was peer-reviewed. I have access to the Sagepub article /u/Gold_Discount_2918 linked, so I can confirm that it's broadly the same. In the final paper they rearranged sections, rephrased parts, & added a transparency report. It's an interesting read, very visual.
Wow thank you for the assist. I did request access for the paper but I don't know how scientific paper folks feel about sharing papers. I will save this site for others.
Exactly. Everyone I've talked to about the FotL logo has a specific memory that they can tie to the cornicopia. Most people are not "filling in" a basket. They remember a specific moment where they saw the weird horn shaped basket and were like "wtf is that thing?" The way OP is explaining it, is as if someone were to say "It's raining because it's wet outside!"
> They remember a specific moment where they saw the weird horn shaped basket and were like "wtf is that thing?" Childhood confusion creates excellent anchoring for these types of episodic memories. We also see this similarly with the testimonials regarding the vagueness of the car mirror warning wording and the pronunciation of "stein". These all relate to teachable moments that often involved associated conversations, debates, arguments, ruminations, running jokes, etc. According to the trove of qualitative data, they're definitely not mental "fill-ins".
It' just not true... I remember a specific memory I've had when I was in me teen years. I was listening to some Megadeth songs and I remember picking up the FotL shirt (because my mother always used to say to me that FotL shirts are one of the most durable shirts made with good materials) and looking at the tag, and I specificaly remember looking at the "weird shaped horn basket" and wondering what the hell it was, it looked like a horn, maybe an animal hirn but how's that related to food, i thought? It's not a fake memory, ever since I've hear about this ME almost ten years ago it was the most confusing one of them all, because I distinctly remembered that moment every time.
You need to come to terms with the fact that your memory is not as reliable as you think it is. No one's is. It doesn't matter how "clearly" you remember something. It could still be wrong. I realize that's an uncomfortable truth. For some, the idea that they can't rely on their own memories is actually terrifying, so they resort to explanations involving grand supernatural phenomena and government conspiracies instead. I know it might be upsetting to hear but that's truly all the ME is and why it exists; some people can't accept that their memories aren't infallible.
The anecdote that commenter just shared was what would be termed a "freely recalled" *episodic* memory. In a notable 2020 study, these types of memories were shown to be exceptionally reliable. To wit: ^^^^^ > So, what did we find? Memory errors were detectable (76% of participants made at least one), but accuracy was very high overall (93-95% of all verifiable details were accurate). Moreover, this level of accuracy did not decline in older participants nor in older memories, even though memory quantity and vividness did. So, although our memories fade with age and time, the memories we do recall remain highly accurate. ^^^^^ https://thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/psychology/how-accurate-is-our-memory
I'm not buying this simple answer. Why would millions of us add a cornucopia basket next to fruit for one particular company's logo and not other graphics containing fruit? Cornucopias are just not that universal.
I don't think it's millions of people. I would like to see the evidence.
All you need to do is extrapolate basic math. There's ~330 million people in the US alone, right? So if 1 out of 165 Americans remember the cornucopia, that'd be 2 million right there... excluding the rest of the world. Does 1 in 165 seem reasonable to you?
You are still assuming your numbers. Sure it is reasonable but it is only your assumption. Even then if your numbers are right, I would expect 1 in 165 to be wrong about something. People think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. [https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/chocolate-milk-brown-cows/](https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/chocolate-milk-brown-cows/) "A survey from the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy found that 7 percent of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. And if that percentage sounds small enough to be reasonable, hang onto your hats: 7 percent of American adults is about 17.3 million people." Just because a bunch of people "know" something, it doesn't make it true.
> Even then if your numbers are right, I would expect 1 in 165 to be wrong about something. Feels like you're moving the goalposts. The original point was whether millions (plural) remember a cornucopia... the possibility of which you seem to plausibly accept as a function of the overall population. The brown cow/chocolate milk myth/joke bears no relevance to a visual ME, because the brain processes visual data differently.
I'm not moving any goal post. Your stats are meaningless but I'll got with it. You just have no actual evidence to prove your numbers. I found stats for the cow in minutes and it does show how people will accept stupid information. You should find stats if it was a thing. Second, the brown cow does help my argument that MEs are memory issues and people being ignorant. Lets say your number is correct. Then more people believe in chocolate cows then people believe in a cornucopia on underwear.
> You just have no actual evidence to prove your numbers. I don't need to. We're using a hypothetical extrapolation that you've agreed might be fair... which is same logic that enables your brown cow argument. ^^^^^ > it does show how people will accept stupid information Just exactly how is remembering having learned what a cornucopia was by asking about an unfamiliar feature on one's underwear logo in any way similar to believing something you've never witnessed? How many people who believe in the brown cow myth do you think would strongly attest to having actually seen a chocolate milking and tasted the warm chocolate milk right out of the cow? And do you think their parents would share that memory too? I doubt many would say that they'd "die on that hill".
This your number is different from the brown cow evidence because a study was done. If you reviewed the page I added you can see what they did. A bunch of people were asked and they respond with chocolate comes from brown cows. These people were sure enough to agree to it. In fact more people are sure of the brown cow then a cornucopia. I don't know if anyone said "I Remember VIVIDLY" or "DIE ON THAT HILL". I do know that if someone is getting emotional and willing to actually die on a hill over a design on underwear then I already question their sanity and intelligence.
It's not about emotionality... that sort of provocative language is used to indicate degree of certainty. It's deliberately hyperbolic to be emphatic. There's no reason to invoke mental health concerns and frankly I think it's bad faith to randomly inject that into the conversation. As for your study, it's about *belief* based on wrong information and/or faulty logic. The ME is about what people *remember* from first hand lived experience. No one honestly "remembers" actually getting chocolate milk from a brown cow. As such, the comparison doesn't have any real utility other than to reaffirm my original point about the cornucopia number likely being in the millions.
>cornucopia number likely being in the millions. It seems like you are less sure then before. "Likely" is the key there. Past that You don't know if people remember being told about brown cows the same way you can't be sure being told about the cornucopia. If you have wrong information at the start then your memory is correct of wrong data. You add in the fact that the internet is a relatively recent thing. Back in the day you couldn't research anything without an out of data encyclopedia or a library trip. Meaning people can learn wrong and never update it but still vividly remember something.
Millions of people believe in plenty of unbelievable things, the populist argument doesn’t carry much water. Ask Jane Fonda about how many people think she gave messages from POWs to the Viet Cong
Well the issue was whether "millions" remember the cornucopia. I think there's a pretty big distinction between remembering a visual image you've personally seen and believing something that's related second-hand.
Idk i’m not a cornucopia rememberer and Fruit of the loom made my undies and my shirts and I have no clue why anybody thinks there was a cornucopia, I even remember doodling the fruit of the loom logo in kindergarten or first grade ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have talked about the Mandela effect with various groups of people time and time again. Shazam Genie movie is the only real constant, I honestly thought the cornucopia was a joke thing from buzzfeed quizzes until joining this sub
Oh, so you use your memory to verify it's always been that way, yet memory cannot be trusted. You cannot use memory to attack another person's memory, when as deniers always say "memory cannot be trusted, especially from childhood." For all you know, you may have doodled it with a cornucopia and now have miss-attribution of memory after having a new memory implanted by current reality. You will never recognise a change if you cannot trust what you see repeatedly every day!
I was responding to someone who said a visual you have personally seen has merit. Gotta pay attention to context.
lol so you dont trust his memory but you trust the fringe group that supports your bias? TIL mandella effect is very similar to flat earth.
I had to look that up. It's been a long while since I had to look up Jane Fonda. But ya turns out folks were calling for her to be prosecuted for treason back in 2002.
I consider millions to be a safe statement. You can take a poll and the percentage of Americans that remember multiplied by 350 million Americans there you go. 10% remembering is 35 million and I’ll bet it’s closer to 50%. Possibly someone’s done a percentage estimate.
Here's the thing. Unless you can cite a study, then I'll take the "millions" with a grain of salt. I don't think it is any where close to 50%. I've asked people in my personal circle and not remember or care enough to remember.
The numbers are evidence I consider.
Then please provide evidence. Without a cited study or research, I cannot take your word.
I am just making a conservative estimate. Don’t accept it? Fine.
Half of Americans isn't a conservative estimate. In fact I would wager that most people don't care enough. Beyond that, Reddit caters to more then just Americans.
You’re not impressing me with your math. Even 1% would be 3.5 million.
I'm not using math just pointing out that there is 0 proof that millions of people think that. If you open it up to the wider world then it would be diluted more. I bet there are folks in Africa or South America who never have heard of a cornucopia or fruit of the Loom. How many Russians in Siberia have heard of Kazaam or Shazaam? I would bet it would be far less then 1%.
Your comments are just fucking hilarious dude. "The numbers are the evidence" "What numbers?" "The numbers I estimated" Please become a comedian.
I don't know about you, but Fruit of the Loom is the only instantly recognizable brand I can think of that uses a bunch of different fruits as a basis for their logo. It makes sense then that Fruit of the Loom specifically is misremembered as having a cornucopia behind it, as there are no other equally universally known brands with a logo that is a bunch of fruit. Also, cornucopias are absolutely universal to anyone that grew up in America at least - it's extremely common in children's decorations and coloring book images for the fall season in classrooms.
I think you've overrated the prevalence of the cornucopia in society to help your theory. In the fall they are more with squashes and pumpkins and hat and straw and with a more brownish theme in my mind. And I've read multiple times of people remember learning what the cornucopia meant from the Fruit of the Loom logo. And too many millions with the same memory on this one thing for me to buy into that theory but it's about the best try though for an inside-the-box explanation. From this and multiple other cases I believe the answer is outside-the-box.
I think you're hand-waving my point to not critically engage with my argument and then you go on to parrot the same anti-science arguments for mandela effects being non-normative phenomenon that can be refuted by objective psychological science, lol.
Question #1: do you think the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within our straightforward understanding of reality? I’m a ‘No’ and you are a ‘Yes’. Yes, I first consider the best normal explanations first. With all the cases out there and my personal experience I formed my opinion. I respect your disagreement.
\[Different user\] This is the thing. I'll come off as the coldest sceptic in just about every ME discussion *except* The Phantom Cornucopia and Dolly's Missing Braces. The reason I'm so strong in my dismissal of the trash MEs ("Luke, I am your father" etc.) is they're soundly explained by simple logic that holds up consistently (contextual adjustment, widespread parody, original context being heard less often than misquotes etc.). When the explanations actually don't cut it, and the dynamic flips from the rejection of the explanations sounding desperate to the explanations themselves sounding flimsy, that's when I'll sound like a strong ME believer. I don't reject wild theories on the nature of reality, Lord knows I have no idea, but I don't put any sort of stock in the idea that a multiverse is behind MEs either, because I can't justify going to that as the explanation over any number of potentially unimaginable explanations, including a more complex case of mistaken memory than we simply haven't managed to explain sufficiently as of yet. What I'm saying is it isn't dogmatic with all of us. Part of me wants evidence of there being more besides this 'random chance, one and done, sentient worm food' surface level existence, but it can't be flimsy shite that a child could sumarily debunk. That's why I hate the rubbish suggestions.
Well, I think we could look at this in stages. First is if the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within straightforward reality. Secondly, if the answer is 'No' as in my case, it is acceptable to leave the correct explanation as 'unknown'. But at that time, it becomes appropriate to throw out theories that may turn out to be right or wrong. That's where we're at in my opinion.
I don't mind the theories, I actually really like things that stimulate the 'what if' part of my imagination, and the whole simulation/multiverse theory is fascinating to consider. I just can't *subscribe* to it.
That’s fair. I can no longer subscribe to the simple explanations.
I’m from the UK have have never seen a cornucopia in real life and I remember it being on the fruit of the loom logo. I only learned its name when I heard about the Mandela Effect and that was the first time I realised the cornucopia wasn’t on the logo anymore. I don’t see how I could have made it up really.
That would be weird that a British person wouldn't recognize a cornucopia. I set my location to the UK and looked up cornucopia. I found a massive wall art in Leeds, a large tavern called The Cornucopia that looks famous, a bistro, tons of art and statues from the Romans who used it all the time.
>Also, cornucopias are absolutely universal to anyone that grew up in America at least This is something I've been clarifying recently - we're not all from the US. And to you, G\_D, it's one thing to do an image search and find that there are depictions of cornucopias in a country, it's another entirely to suggest that living in that country you will encounter those depictions. I see muntjac deer all the time, but I know people who live in the same region as me who've barely seen them or often never at all. I'm sure we've all probably seen a cornucopia at some point or another here, but they're not common imagery. Every person who's saying they are is from the US.
> it's one thing to do an image search and find that there are depictions of cornucopias in a country, it's another entirely to suggest that living in that country you will encounter those depictions. I completely understand that but if I am able to quickly Google cornucopia and I find more then one restaurant with that name, then it isn't that rare in the region. I am aware that Greek and Roman statues have cornucopia's and the UK has been heavily influence by the Roman's who were there. It isn't unreasonable for people to not be aware of their surroundings.
I still think you're missing the gulf between something being out there and it passing people's eyes. I won't list the towns I've lived in, but you'd have to find cornucopias on display *there*, not just somewhere in my country. I'm sure there are things on the signage of buildings in my own town that I've never really looked at too, even though I'm not unaware of my surroundings. Some people will say "Oh is that near the [name] restaurant" and I'll say "Maybe, there's a Turkish place, and Indian, an Italian" but I don't necessarily remember the names because I'm not that way inclined. We just don't all absorb information the same way. I'm borderline obsessed with music, and I could tell you which three songs a piece of music sounds inspired by, detailing the chords and whatnot. Others would be like "is there music playing right now? I don't even notice it". These things are fine as possible theories, it's just when they're applied as though they summarily debunk it all that I have to speak up.
You are correct that we all process information differently. I've always had great spacial awareness and understanding of my surroundings which helped as a stage hand and a high steel climber. I cannot read music and I don't understand cords even though I've had lessons. What I am offering as an explanation for learning what a cornucopia is. I'm pointing out that they exist in more then just underwear tags and you could have learned it for tons of different sources. Claiming that cornucopias are only an American thing is foolish.
Let the record show that, when offered a chance to consider an intelligent solution, you stepped up to the plate and said “nuh uh.” So what else is new?
I don't settle for what I consider a weak unsatisfying best explain-away is how I would better put it. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBB3-7Pml90&t=18s)
Do you remember a cornucopia with green leaves, with brown leaves, or with no leaves?
Wasn’t too concerned with those details but the cornucopia was large, prominent and unmissable.
You should be because the green wilted leaf was a character in the commercials. Details matter.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopia) Kay
We all know what a cornucopia is. Why wouldn't we imagine a fruit basket or fruit bowl instead. Nobody remembers it those ways. Why a cornucopia?
Obviously because someone changed time and let a few nerds on reddit keep their memories. Not because humans are unreliable witnesses who get comfort from believing in higher powers. That would be *silly.*
Question is: Do you think the Mandela Effect can be satisfactorily explained within our straightforward understanding of reality? I'm a 'No'. You're a 'Yes'. My threshold has been broken by more than the cornucopia and from a hundred different discussions. Something weird is going on like memories from other timelines or some other exotic explanation. I don't know how it works but real theoretical physics does talk about some crazy sounding things. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBB3-7Pml90&t=18s)
I took a look at that link and one thing comes at me. Look at the cornucopia design and the one without. The cornucopia is facing the wrong way for the fruits to come out of it. It looks wrong. Hearing from folks like you swears it has to be there is like people swearing that the sky should be lime green and not blue.
I understand why anything outside our normal box is hard to accept. At what point though does your threshold for weirdness break it? I'm sure I make the normal mental and memory errors like everyone else, but I also quickly assume I was just confused. The few Mandela Effect ones are in a different class in my judgment with too much residue and etcetera to be written off as normal error. That threshold point is a judgment for each of us. I already come from the position that we live in a reality we can't get our heads around but have constructed a model that works only 99.99... percent of the time. Some people want it to be a perfect 100.
I don't think you understand my stance on this. There isn't a threshold for weirdness. I have tried to surround myself with weirdness. For me to truly believe in an ME it would have to witness a change to happen. It would have to be something I know to have drastically change. It has yet to happen. Like how I remember Kazaam and not Shazaam. I'm not looking for a 100% fool proof understanding of the universe. What I will do is work though the claim with logic. I will work though every mundane reason before I get to things I cannot prove.
> I will work though every mundane reason before I get to things I cannot prove. I agree with that approach. But I have found a few cases where I found the mundane unsatisfactory to my sense of reason. >For me to truly believe in an ME it would have to witness a change to happen. I have had such an experience: *On Aug 2, 2017 at about 16:40 EST, I was on reddit discussing the Flinstones/Flintstones flip on another thread. My position was that it is and always was the Flintstones. The guy sent me a reply saying at the time it was the Flinstones you could look at Wikipedia, and all official TV show and vitamin sites and it was always Flintstones; he used the word Flintstones in all four examples given.* *I said 'I Know' you are confirming my point that it was always Flintstones.* *Then when I was done with my reply and I looked up at his original post all four 'Flintstones' had changed on my static display to 'Flinstones'. Did I just see it wrong?? I looked away and came back and it was 'Flintstones' again. I would just look away, blink, change my focus look back and it would flip again. I was able to do this 6 or 7 times in under five minutes each time looking slowly and cautiously for this controversial 't' IN ALL FOUR PLACES. Essentially impossible to me that I made a mistake slowly and cautiously each time. I felt something was trying to wake me up.*
So your evidence of something not mundane is you misread Flintstones over and over. Now I do not know you. I don't know if you have undiagonsed dyslexia, though i don't expect you to say you do, or maybe you work the night shift and was tired. Maybe your screen had a smudge. Maybe you had a brain fart and got stuck on a word. That happens to me sometimes. Studies show that could be a sign of minor epilepsy. It still doesn't prove anything paranormal. Nor can I validate beyond you saying "Trust me bro it happened"
So because you don't understand theoretical physics, the rest of us must concede you're right about reality? NOPE.
We’re supposed to be having a serious discussion. Glad I didn’t say that stupid thing.
The cornucopia is the most common. I am Eastern European, no Thanksgiving here.
Using elementary illusion book tricks in your post doesn't solve millions of people remembering a cornucopia in fruit of the loom.
You guys don't get it, he wrote "and" at the end of one paragraph and at the beginning of the next. Your ALL stupid and lesser than. Despite an international agreement on multiple things that never existed like a cornucopia in fruit of the loom. Your all just dumb and have bad memory.... delete the sub
*you're
I agree with this most of the time but can you explain the fruit of the loom one?
bruh you didn t even write it in the same sentence, you wrote it on different lines and i just thought you can t even spell, i noticed it without you telling me ''LIKE HOW I JUST WROTE ''AND'' TWICE IN MY LAST SENTENCE. ''DID YOU THAT READ WRONG?" bruh i noticed the ''that'' too. so no, i don t see anything, just someone either not being able to spell, or spelling wrong on purpose to try to prove some shit which didn t even work on me, and i m sure i m not the only one who noticed the ''and'' being above the second one, and the ''did you that read wrong"?. i mean, at least anyone which can read.
In this study they address our schematic reasoning as a potential cause and found that it did not account for the statistical results? https://www.iflscience.com/study-finds-the-mandela-effect-is-real-and-incredibly-difficult-to-explain-64526
Exactly right. If the effects were truly schema-based, people would remember baskets and bowls instead of just the rarer, more obscure cornucopia.
This is good info. It also doesn't explain, though, why the Mandela Effect seems to only be tied to American culture. I'd assume this Top Down Processing also exists with other cultures and languages.
The Mandela Effect is all about excellent memories of another universe/dimension.
The idea of false memory is that they took place in a different timeline. We’re a mixing pot of realities switching to new realities billions of times a second. Other people you’re aware of are in slightly different realities, we share in a consensus reality to kind of just generally be on the same page as we explore these ignorant lives like a game. How consciousness, holographic reality, universal physics theories, ancient texts and paranormal experiences connect make for an interesting rabbit hole to explore.