Alternative Explanations for 'The Mandela Effect'

[JohnEmmett]

I gave you specific examples. Please address them.

I do not know

How are you even coming up with this information

 

[Freodin]

For example, Hitler did not have blue eyes

Now he does

Err... no, he does not.

You are reaching. You have come to a point where things get verifiable.

It was a common joke in Nazi Germany that Hitler did not fit the arian stereotype of "blonde and blue-eyed".
There is still documentation for that. Why would it still exist if this was "retconned"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Interestingly, I used to own a Soviet flag. … It didn't have a star.

And you know what is really curious? It still doesn't! Why hasn't it changed to this "new timeline" rules?

That’s residual evidence …

There should not be any

 

[JohnEmmett]

Err... no, he does not.

It was a common joke in Nazi Germany that Hitler did not fit the arian stereotype of "blonde and blue-eyed".

There is still documentation for that. Why would it still exist if this was "retconned"?

I know he should not have blue eyes

I can’t fully explain

 

[Freodin]

That’s residual evidence …

There should not be any

Everyone: take note.
This was the point. The question. The question JE keeps evading.

How do I distinguish between these two? THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU JUST KEEP EVADING.

See how he just keeps evading? While calling others evasive?

 

[JohnEmmett]

See how he just keeps evading?

Google Hitler’s eye color and read all of the results

 

[JohnEmmett]

Adolf Hitler in color

Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching

 

[Freodin]

I know he should not have blue eyes

I can’t fully explain

Ah, you KNOW! Well, that solves the problem then. Because your KNOWLEDGE of Hitler tops everything.

I imagine that your KNOWLEDGE is based on personal experience? Or at least detailed research?

No? You just "know"?

That is another of the problems with you. You keep talking about "valueing truth" and "investigation". But you never do that.

See, Hitler did have blue eyes. It's a reported fact. But most of the images that exist are black and white - which doesn't distinguish between brown eyes and (darker) blue eyes, or paintings, where the colour is difficult to discern.

There do exist images of Hitler with clear, baby-blue eyes... but these are fakes.

Still... there are enough reports and, ehm, "memories" of people talking about Hitler having blue eyes. It's not to difficult to find.

But what do you base your claim that Hitler didn't have blue eyes on? Your "knowledge".

You did nothing to "check your memories". q.e.d.

 

[Freodin]

Adolf Hitler in color

Hey, look. You are able to use google.
Well... there you have it.

And your evidence for the claim that Hitler didn't have blue eyes?

Waiting...

 

[JohnEmmett]

But what do you base your claim that Hitler didn't have blue eyes on?

I remember he did not fit his own ideals

Everyone remembers that

You said … it is your memory

 

[JohnEmmett]

You just "know"?

There do exist images of Hitler with clear, baby-blue eyes... but these are fakes.

It’s clear you have a memory of the previous reality

That has since been retconned

 

[Freodin]

I remember he did not fit his own ideals

Everyone remembers that

You said … it is your memory

Yes. He didn't "fit his own ideals." That's what this old German joke from the Nazi era is about.

But that's point. What you "remember" is, again, trivia. What does it "mean" that he didn't "fit his ideals"?

That's the joke.

"How is the ideal German?
"Blonde like Hitler - tall like Goebbels - slender like Göring - chaste like Röhm."

Hitler wasn't blonde. That was very easy to tell. that still is easy to tell. Just like the stature or Goebbels, the girth of Göring or... well, the grapevine about Röhm.

But eyes? Most Germans never got close enough to "The Führer" to see his eyes. The portraits that were everywhere were black and white. The majority wouldn't know, as they don't know the eye colour of most other people.

But those who did have closer access... they knew. They talked about it. Why do you trust your assumptions more than people's memories? Because, admit it... you do not have ANY memories of Hitler's eye colour.

 

[Freodin]

It’s clear you have a memory of the previous reality

That has since been retconned

No, this has been "reproduced". For some reason, there is a market in Asia for Nazi memorabilae. Which aren't originals... there just wouldn't be enough originals. But painting isn't that difficult... and you can use any colour you like!

I still cannot stop being amazed how you manage to elevate all sorts of fiction over reality.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Because, admit it... you do not have ANY memories of Hitler's eye colour.

Many memories… this is one

 

[JohnEmmett]

you manage to elevate all sorts of fiction over reality.

what is reality though

 

[Freodin]

Many memories… this is one

That's... impressive.

I'm not that young anymore. I do not remember the Berlin wall being build... that was a few years before my time. I like to joke that I was live watching the first moon landing... but I have no recollections about that. Most likely, I was sound asleep at that time in my crib.
But I do have memories - direct, personal memories of the Berlin wall, the border checkpoints, the guards, the passing procedures.

There are many people in Germany today who don't have any memories of that time... but they do have the pictures in their mind. From the existing documentation.

Hitler though? My parents had been children when Hitler was around. Even as children in Berlin, they never got close enough to Hitler to see his eyes.

But you... and American, who doesn't seem to be either over 90 years old, or ever have been to Germany... you have memories of Hitler's eyes.

Impressive.

 

[JohnEmmett]

…

Atheists want ideal evidence

Sorry the actual evidence is not enough for you

 

[Freodin]

what is reality though

I know what fiction is. And that is the point.

You might have a "memory" about a little exchange regarding Holmes and his sidekick.

Sherlock Holmes never existed. He is a fictional character, the invention of a real human being. This is something humans can do... as evidenced by my invention of the fictional character "Shylock Holmes".

See... it is easy to create a fictional representation of something. A representation that doesn't have to conform to reality.

 

[Freodin]

Atheists want ideal evidence

Sorry the actual evidence is not enough for you

There is no actual evidence. There are only claims. Claims are easy to make. Evidence is harder to produce.

It's no surprise why you stick to claims, and never provide evidence.

 

[John Owen]

Although the effect itself is real enough (that is, there are hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of people around the globe who recall certain items or events being a particular way instead of how they are in actuality), the explanations for this that have been offered thus far are, in my opinion, just not very helpful or convincing.
The two main explanations are:
1. Confabulation. Millions of people are just misremembering, and they are doing so conveniently in the exact same way. When it comes to the spelling of a brand-name in particular, this seems plausible, because people will often spell words or names in a manner that seems intuitive. For example, that American brand 'J. C. Penney' looks as though it should be 'J. C. Penny', because 'Penny' is a girl's name that we are all familiar with. Everyone remembers the 'Monopoly Man' having a monocle, because he's wearing a tuxedo with a top hat, and carrying a cane, and men who used to dress this way quite often had monocles as well.
However, it doesn't account for historical changes. Who here remembers something called the Black Tom explosion? You know, that act of sabotage by German agents during World War 1 back in 1916, before the USA even entered the war, and which resulted in damage to the Statue of Liberty's outstretched arm, which in turn meant that the 'flame' platform has been closed to the public ever since? Why wasn't this attack mentioned even once back in 2001 after the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked? I remember the comparison being made to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but no one in the media compared it to Black Tom. Why not?
2. 'Sliding' between Alternative Realities. The 1990's TV show 'Sliders' was entertaining, but it could only ever be, in my opinion anyway, pure fiction. First of all, we have no evidence whatsoever for the actual existence of parallel universes. None, nothing, zero, zilch. Secondly, even if we had such evidence because alternative realities really do exist, how would it be possible for people to visit them? What kind of mechanism would be involved in transporting them?
Anyway, I was just wondering if there were other theories out there to account for what's going on. I'm not happy with the two I mention above, because both have serious flaws so far as being a satisfactory explanation goes.

There are many explanations, but the most probably is the media effect. Media presents things one way over and over and people begin to think it is true.