Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Techmology and Scientism => High Weirdness => Topic started by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 04:14:15 am

Title: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 04:14:15 am
This thread is a dumping ground for the so called "Mandela effect". It was sparked during a conversation over in this thread here. (https://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,38163.0.html) It primarily exists as a reference to avoid derailing the thread above. If folks want to add to it go right ahead. I'm going to merely report what folks have been attributing to the effect. If others want to be more whimsical I sure wouldn't mind. This shit is heavy enough and I could use a laugh.


Quote
Isaiah 11:6-8

6The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearlinga together;
and a little child will lead them.

7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

This is the infamous "lion and lamb" quote that appears to now involve a lamb and wolf. If you never read the passage you'd never know the difference in that it's crazy talk about peaceful animals, but this is in reference to the world peace of the messiah's kingdom to come and the animals represent political and spiritual entities. There was never a wolf with the lamb to my recollection and it was the wolf eating grass, not the lion.

Quote
Matthew 6:9-13 (Lord's Prayer)

9“This, then, is how you should pray:
“ ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

11 Give us today our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

Luke 11: 2-4

2And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3Give us day by day our daily bread.

4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.


Here we have the Lord's prayer in both versions. It's notable that it now says debt instead of tresspass and "evil one" where most would remember just saying "evil".

There's no affirmation "for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen." It totally doesn't exist. :fnord:

Quote
2 Corinthians 11:8

8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you(the church of Corinth) service. 

If I recall correctly Paul never referred to himself as a thief or confessed theft in his epistles. Of course the whole "Mandela" thing is about whether or not folks are in fact recalling shit correctly.

Quote
Matthew 21:1-3

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 

2Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 

3And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 

Here we have a narrative discrepancy in that there was "originally" only one ass and no colt in the palm Sunday story, yet there it is. Two asses for the price of one.

Quote

Luke 19:27

27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

The way this read was "shew (show) them before me". Jesus never called for murder and was quite the ardent pacifist to the death. This is just a sampling of the weirdness in the bible lately... but of course these passages were always this way surely...

That's it for now. These five barely scratch the surface of what folks are reporting in vast numbers as discrepancies in scripture. It's only going to get weirder from here on out and I suspect that a major schism is likely to happen over this shit. Folks do get touchy about their "holy" books after all.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 02, 2017, 09:06:27 am
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 02, 2017, 09:15:04 am
I may be wrong but I think the Lord's Prayer example results from differences between the KJV translation and the traditional Catholic recital, which is heard more often in popular culture.

The rest of it is definitely due to time travelers or the Large Hadron Collider, though.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 02, 2017, 01:04:06 pm
I may be wrong but I think the Lord's Prayer example results from differences between the KJV translation and the traditional Catholic recital, which is heard more often in popular culture.

The rest of it is definitely due to time travelers or the Large Hadron Collider, though.

You're correct. Catholics end it at "but deliver us from evil".
During Mass, the priest then continues, "Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ." They changed the wording of the translation in 2011, but that's not how I was brought up so, obviously that's all wrong
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 02, 2017, 01:08:59 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 02, 2017, 04:35:45 pm
I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 05:01:38 pm
I may be wrong but I think the Lord's Prayer example results from differences between the KJV translation and the traditional Catholic recital, which is heard more often in popular culture.

The rest of it is definitely due to time travelers or the Large Hadron Collider, though.

Yeah I thought it might be from reconciliation of the two on "deliver us from evil". The use of the word "debts" in both is news to me and the bigger mystery. "Tresspass" has a rather different meaning and that's how I was taught it for sure.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 05:06:58 pm
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

The Watchtower Society are some crazy fuckers. I'd like to see if there's any buzz from them on this, but don't care to dig into their shit to find out.

As for the KJV drawing criticism... not surprising. I always thought that raising one particular translation to the status of "Infallible Word Of God" was pretty much idolatry. But folks disagreed with fire back then.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 02, 2017, 05:15:05 pm
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

Classic con job. The common folk eat it up, thinking they where being empowered when it was just the king trying to wrestle control from the church by attacking thier power base. Catholics clicked on it first, took the protestants longer to fugure out the con.

The Watchtower Society are some crazy fuckers. I'd like to see if there's any buzz from them on this, but don't care to dig into their shit to find out.

As for the KJV drawing criticism... not surprising. I always thought that raising one particular translation to the status of "Infallible Word Of God" was pretty much idolatry. But folks disagreed with fire back then.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Fallenkezef on July 02, 2017, 05:16:33 pm
That was weird.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 05:17:22 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.

I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.

Now I want to watch the Ghostbusters again just to see.

There are a LOT of movie and media Mandelas. They even say folks remember movies that never existed like "Shazam!", a movie about a genie named  Shazam that had Sinbad cast as the genie. Never happened, but I personally remember the movie clear as day from when I worked in a video rental place around 16 years ago.

There's also a LOT of Star Wars ones. C3po's silver leg is one. Another is the infamous quote "Luke, I am your father" is now "No. I am your father". There's even footage of James Earl Jones repeating the line with "Luke" in it on a daytime talk show. You'd think he would know.

There's a James Bond one where Jaws meets a woman who smiles at him and they just click for no reason. I never saw the "original" but folks swear she used to have a mouth full of braces and the metal teeth thing was their motivation in the scene.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 05:19:11 pm
That was weird.

Welcome to PD!
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 02, 2017, 05:24:39 pm
Are there any even remotely plausible explanations for the phenomenon that veer into Weird territory? I've heard the LHC one, and time travel, but really the LHC thing is silly because the effects of those experiments are scientifically unsurprising even when they produce new information. I mean it isn't like they've discovered gigantic holes in the standard or relativistic models or there's some kind of "might puncture the spacetime continuum" warning from anyone other than nutters on Reddit.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 05:29:01 pm
Are there any even remotely plausible explanations for the phenomenon that veer into Weird territory? I've heard the LHC one, and time travel, but really the LHC thing is silly because the effects of those experiments are scientifically unsurprising even when they produce new information. I mean it isn't like they've discovered gigantic holes in the standard or relativistic models or there's some kind of "might puncture the spacetime continuum" warning from anyone other than nutters on Reddit.

The LHC one is sort of an outgrowth of an even more bizarre theory that CERN is actually a gateway to hell built with that intent... ya know, like scientists do.  :roll:

They can't all be Parsons.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 02, 2017, 05:40:58 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 02, 2017, 05:46:40 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.

I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.

Now I want to watch the Ghostbusters again just to see.

There are a LOT of movie and media Mandelas. They even say folks remember movies that never existed like "Shazam!", a movie about a genie named  Shazam that had Sinbad cast as the genie. Never happened, but I personally remember the movie clear as day from when I worked in a video rental place around 16 years ago.

There's also a LOT of Star Wars ones. C3po's silver leg is one. Another is the infamous quote "Luke, I am your father" is now "No. I am your father". There's even footage of James Earl Jones repeating the line with "Luke" in it on a daytime talk show. You'd think he would know.

There's a James Bond one where Jaws meets a woman who smiles at him and they just click for no reason. I never saw the "original" but folks swear she used to have a mouth full of braces and the metal teeth thing was their motivation in the scene.

The first time Winston uses a proton pack in the movie is at Gozer's Temple. That is the only time you see him busting anything.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 02, 2017, 05:48:00 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure if that's because it seems plausible that that would have existed at some point.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 08:58:44 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

 :lulz: See and I've never heard of any such thing. We must be from different universes of origin!
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 02, 2017, 09:01:11 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.

I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.

Now I want to watch the Ghostbusters again just to see.

There are a LOT of movie and media Mandelas. They even say folks remember movies that never existed like "Shazam!", a movie about a genie named  Shazam that had Sinbad cast as the genie. Never happened, but I personally remember the movie clear as day from when I worked in a video rental place around 16 years ago.

There's also a LOT of Star Wars ones. C3po's silver leg is one. Another is the infamous quote "Luke, I am your father" is now "No. I am your father". There's even footage of James Earl Jones repeating the line with "Luke" in it on a daytime talk show. You'd think he would know.

There's a James Bond one where Jaws meets a woman who smiles at him and they just click for no reason. I never saw the "original" but folks swear she used to have a mouth full of braces and the metal teeth thing was their motivation in the scene.

The first time Winston uses a proton pack in the movie is at Gozer's Temple. That is the only time you see him busting anything.

That can not be right. Maybe it is, but I could swear there were transition scenes with him carrying a pack.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 02, 2017, 10:22:17 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.

I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.

Now I want to watch the Ghostbusters again just to see.

There are a LOT of movie and media Mandelas. They even say folks remember movies that never existed like "Shazam!", a movie about a genie named  Shazam that had Sinbad cast as the genie. Never happened, but I personally remember the movie clear as day from when I worked in a video rental place around 16 years ago.

There's also a LOT of Star Wars ones. C3po's silver leg is one. Another is the infamous quote "Luke, I am your father" is now "No. I am your father". There's even footage of James Earl Jones repeating the line with "Luke" in it on a daytime talk show. You'd think he would know.

There's a James Bond one where Jaws meets a woman who smiles at him and they just click for no reason. I never saw the "original" but folks swear she used to have a mouth full of braces and the metal teeth thing was their motivation in the scene.

The first time Winston uses a proton pack in the movie is at Gozer's Temple. That is the only time you see him busting anything.

That can not be right. Maybe it is, but I could swear there were transition scenes with him carrying a pack.

No transition scenes. The first time he busts something on screen, it's a god.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 02:08:09 am
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

I've had things where I've tried to remember their names or look them up but was unable to find them for years (and I then I suddenly found most of them over the course of the previous year. For those curious these included the movie "Soulkeeper", the cartoon "The Halloween Tree", the book "The Summer I Shrunk My Grandmother", and the published D&D encounter "The Shrine of Gath-Mal)

Now as for the bible you also have to keep in mind that there's at least twenty-something translations, take a look:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

Also the King James version while famous is in many places a very poor translation. In the Book of Revelation for instance it has the personification of famine giving out food essentially for free.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 03, 2017, 04:35:07 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

I've had things where I've tried to remember their names or look them up but was unable to find them for years (and I then I suddenly found most of them over the course of the previous year. For those curious these included the movie "Soulkeeper", the cartoon "The Halloween Tree", the book "The Summer I Shrunk My Grandmother", and the published D&D encounter "The Shrine of Gath-Mal)

Now as for the bible you also have to keep in mind that there's at least twenty-something translations, take a look:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

Also the King James version while famous is in many places a very poor translation. In the Book of Revelation for instance it has the personification of famine giving out food essentially for free.
While I agree the KJV is shit translation, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually in it.
 :cn:
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 05:18:13 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

I've had things where I've tried to remember their names or look them up but was unable to find them for years (and I then I suddenly found most of them over the course of the previous year. For those curious these included the movie "Soulkeeper", the cartoon "The Halloween Tree", the book "The Summer I Shrunk My Grandmother", and the published D&D encounter "The Shrine of Gath-Mal)

Now as for the bible you also have to keep in mind that there's at least twenty-something translations, take a look:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

Also the King James version while famous is in many places a very poor translation. In the Book of Revelation for instance it has the personification of famine giving out food essentially for free.
While I agree the KJV is shit translation, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually in it.
 :cn:

http://biblehub.com/revelation/6-6.htm

compare:

New International Version:
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

Berean Litetal Bible
And I heard something like a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, "A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius; and you should not injure the oil and the wine."

New Living Translation
And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, "A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day's pay. And don't waste the olive oil and wine."

King James
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, 'A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.'

Now, I checked, and I'm pretty sure the British penny is as worthless as the American penny (can one of you brits verify?) and also I did a google search and apparently some of the really miserable third world sweatshop workers get as little as one cent an hour, so if we're really generous the King James Bible is off by a factor of ten
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 03, 2017, 05:25:51 pm
well it might have made sense 400 years ago. there were probably plenty of people earned a penny a day (or less).
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 05:28:29 pm
I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role.

When I read this sentence the first time I accidentally read it as if there was a comma between "on" and "reprising". That would've been a great Ghostbusters movie.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 03, 2017, 06:02:40 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

I've had things where I've tried to remember their names or look them up but was unable to find them for years (and I then I suddenly found most of them over the course of the previous year. For those curious these included the movie "Soulkeeper", the cartoon "The Halloween Tree", the book "The Summer I Shrunk My Grandmother", and the published D&D encounter "The Shrine of Gath-Mal)

Now as for the bible you also have to keep in mind that there's at least twenty-something translations, take a look:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

Also the King James version while famous is in many places a very poor translation. In the Book of Revelation for instance it has the personification of famine giving out food essentially for free.
While I agree the KJV is shit translation, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually in it.
 :cn:

http://biblehub.com/revelation/6-6.htm

compare:

New International Version:
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

Berean Litetal Bible
And I heard something like a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, "A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius; and you should not injure the oil and the wine."

New Living Translation
And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, "A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day's pay. And don't waste the olive oil and wine."

King James
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, 'A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.'

Now, I checked, and I'm pretty sure the British penny is as worthless as the American penny (can one of you brits verify?) and also I did a google search and apparently some of the really miserable third world sweatshop workers get as little as one cent an hour, so if we're really generous the King James Bible is off by a factor of ten

That scripture is actually saying it will be terribly expensive for basic things like bread, and stuff like wine and olive oil will be absurdly expensive. Bread, olive oil and wine were the staples of the day.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 03, 2017, 06:20:55 pm
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

The Watchtower Society are some crazy fuckers. I'd like to see if there's any buzz from them on this, but don't care to dig into their shit to find out.

As for the KJV drawing criticism... not surprising. I always thought that raising one particular translation to the status of "Infallible Word Of God" was pretty much idolatry. But folks disagreed with fire back then.

JW's have their own bible, the New Word Translation. To their minds, it is by far the most accurate translation. Granted, the guys that did the translation had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek and there are some seriously questionable translations that seem to be more about confirming their doctrine than having an exact translation. For example, John 1:1 is generally translated to something like "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Now, JW"s claim the Word is Jesus, and that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. So in the NWT they translated John 1:1 as "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God." They claim that the Greek includes "an indefinate article a"... but of course every Greek scholar in existence seems to think this is nutty as Jif (or Jiffy) peanut butter. They also translated the scriptures to include "Jehovah" all over the place, where most translations have GOD or LORD (all caps).

The scripture from Isiah, about the Wolf and Lamb is believed by JW's, as literal. Their belief is that in Eden, all God's living creatures were basically vegan until the Flood. After the flood, veggies weren't as awesome as they were before, so God told Noah humans had to start eating animals (but not the blood). They believe that after Armageddon, humans and animals will return to being vegans.

I'm guessing that means sharks are gonna live on seaweed or something...
 
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 06:43:54 pm
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

The Watchtower Society are some crazy fuckers. I'd like to see if there's any buzz from them on this, but don't care to dig into their shit to find out.

As for the KJV drawing criticism... not surprising. I always thought that raising one particular translation to the status of "Infallible Word Of God" was pretty much idolatry. But folks disagreed with fire back then.

JW's have their own bible, the New Word Translation. To their minds, it is by far the most accurate translation. Granted, the guys that did the translation had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek and there are some seriously questionable translations that seem to be more about confirming their doctrine than having an exact translation. For example, John 1:1 is generally translated to something like "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Now, JW"s claim the Word is Jesus, and that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. So in the NWT they translated John 1:1 as "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God." They claim that the Greek includes "an indefinate article a"... but of course every Greek scholar in existence seems to think this is nutty as Jif (or Jiffy) peanut butter. They also translated the scriptures to include "Jehovah" all over the place, where most translations have GOD or LORD (all caps).

It was my understanding that a lot of the "LORD"s were indedd a standin for "Jehovah"/"Yahweh" in the original text (though I forget whether that was something that the english translators did or merely something some historians hypothesized to have been done by the people making the greek/hebrew/latin/aramaic copies, the changes thus having been already made prior to the english translation)
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 03, 2017, 06:49:52 pm
They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

The Watchtower Society are some crazy fuckers. I'd like to see if there's any buzz from them on this, but don't care to dig into their shit to find out.

As for the KJV drawing criticism... not surprising. I always thought that raising one particular translation to the status of "Infallible Word Of God" was pretty much idolatry. But folks disagreed with fire back then.

JW's have their own bible, the New Word Translation. To their minds, it is by far the most accurate translation. Granted, the guys that did the translation had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek and there are some seriously questionable translations that seem to be more about confirming their doctrine than having an exact translation. For example, John 1:1 is generally translated to something like "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Now, JW"s claim the Word is Jesus, and that Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. So in the NWT they translated John 1:1 as "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God." They claim that the Greek includes "an indefinate article a"... but of course every Greek scholar in existence seems to think this is nutty as Jif (or Jiffy) peanut butter. They also translated the scriptures to include "Jehovah" all over the place, where most translations have GOD or LORD (all caps).

It was my understanding that a lot of the "LORD"s were indedd a standin for "Jehovah"/"Yahweh"

Yeah, it was used in place of the Tetragrammaton. The reasoning in the JW translation, though, is less about accuracy and more about justification for their name. Isa. 43:10 seems a lot more impressive when it reads "You are my witnesses, is the utterance of Jehovah", instead of "You are my witnesses, is the utterance of the LORD"
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 03, 2017, 07:34:33 pm
I have a Mandela effect thing, that I'm not sure anyone else had. I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role. It would have been reasonable to do so, because as I would find out later, he wasn't very happy with how downplayed his character was in the first movie and how it didn't really help his career that much as was promised. However, Hudson definitely played Zeddemore twice.

I remember Winston having a much larger role in Ghostbusters than he actually does in either movie, but I think it's because I watched the cartoon version a lot as a kid. But I never paid that much attention to the behind the scenes stuff.

Now I want to watch the Ghostbusters again just to see.

There are a LOT of movie and media Mandelas. They even say folks remember movies that never existed like "Shazam!", a movie about a genie named  Shazam that had Sinbad cast as the genie. Never happened, but I personally remember the movie clear as day from when I worked in a video rental place around 16 years ago.

The movie was named "Kazaam!", and it starred Shaq, not Sinbad. The misremembered name is explainable by confusion with a similarly named character from "Captain Marvel". The misremembered casting is explainable by the fact that Shaq is really much more famous as an athlete than an actor and they both were big around the same time and have shaved heads and mononymous names beginning with the letter "S"
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 03, 2017, 09:18:48 pm
I could have sworn that someone different played Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters II, because Ernie Hudson passed on reprising the role.

When I read this sentence the first time I accidentally read it as if there was a comma between "on" and "reprising". That would've been a great Ghostbusters movie.

Metal. As. Fuck.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 03, 2017, 11:23:48 pm
I don't know if this qualifies (probably not), but I remember as a kid in the late 80s/early 90s playing these "choose your own adventure" games via telephone hotlines. I was curious one day and decided to look them up online, but they're not mentioned anywhere I can find them (or my google-fu is poor) except on one forum post somewhere with no replies. Maybe the Time Lords cancelled their existence.

I've had things where I've tried to remember their names or look them up but was unable to find them for years (and I then I suddenly found most of them over the course of the previous year. For those curious these included the movie "Soulkeeper", the cartoon "The Halloween Tree", the book "The Summer I Shrunk My Grandmother", and the published D&D encounter "The Shrine of Gath-Mal)

Now as for the bible you also have to keep in mind that there's at least twenty-something translations, take a look:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/1-2.htm

Also the King James version while famous is in many places a very poor translation. In the Book of Revelation for instance it has the personification of famine giving out food essentially for free.
While I agree the KJV is shit translation, I'm pretty sure this isn't actually in it.
 :cn:

http://biblehub.com/revelation/6-6.htm

compare:

New International Version:
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

Berean Litetal Bible
And I heard something like a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, "A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius; and you should not injure the oil and the wine."

New Living Translation
And I heard a voice from among the four living beings say, "A loaf of wheat bread or three loaves of barley will cost a day's pay. And don't waste the olive oil and wine."

King James
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, 'A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.'

Now, I checked, and I'm pretty sure the British penny is as worthless as the American penny (can one of you brits verify?) and also I did a google search and apparently some of the really miserable third world sweatshop workers get as little as one cent an hour, so if we're really generous the King James Bible is off by a factor of ten

That scripture is actually saying it will be terribly expensive for basic things like bread, and stuff like wine and olive oil will be absurdly expensive. Bread, olive oil and wine were the staples of the day.

This. The use of "penny" isn't what I remember. I remember "day's wages" but I prefer the NIV so that could just be me...

Or it could be yet another Mandela effect.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 04, 2017, 12:55:05 am
A penny might have been a shitload of money during the reign of James
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 04, 2017, 04:57:43 pm
A penny might have been a shitload of money during the reign of James
We'll get there again, someday.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 04, 2017, 10:13:19 pm
I’ve got one under the category of “or otherwise” that may be appropriate for our Independence Day. I’m seeing what I call a “Rewriting of History” concerning the US contribution to winning WWII. I’ve never thought of it as the Mandela Effect, but I suppose this example may count as such.

My old memories of the Normandy invasion are based upon the stories I heard as a boy (Including the brief utterances of an uncle who landed on Utah Beach), the many documentaries of the 1950’s, and statements made by Stephen E. Ambrose, an eminent historian of WWII. Lately, I’m finding those memories are significantly different from what I’m now reading, and seeing on TV. 

Being a student of history, and having had the opportunity to visit the Normandy beachheads with “Uncle François” (extended family) as a guide, my memories of all of this are quite clear and vivid.

When we visited The Mémorial de Caen, I was surprised to learn that Americans had been, pretty much, allowed to tag along with the British during their great victories at the Normandy beachheads. And although I was irritated, I wrote it off as the French catering to the large numbers of British tourists visiting the museum, versus the paltry number of Americans that manage to find there way into Caen. (We had visited the Normandy beachheads, museums, and cemeteries during one of the invasion anniversaries, and still only a small handful of Americans were there.)   

Anyway, now I’m reading, and seeing on TV, that we Americans had totally misjudged the difficulty in fighting our way through the famous Normandy hedgerows, and that’s why it took Americans so long to achieve a breakout from the beachheads. The way I remember it, however, is that our allies totally screwed the pooch by not taking Caen on schedule, and leading the originally planned breakout through the flat, open country, sans hedgerows, that lie to the east of Omaha beach. I distinctly remember Stephen E. Ambrose remarking that after making easy landings at their assigned beachheads, our allies stopped to make tea, congratulate themselves, and fail to aggressively press further inland over easy terrain.

Again, to emphasize my point, I’m now reading, and seeing on TV, that we Americans are the ones that dropped the ball. And this despite the fact that it was American forces that ultimately achieved the Normandy breakout at Saint-Lô. Needless to say, I’m offended after seeing for myself what American forces had to deal with at Omaha beach and Pointe du Hoc, compared to what the other allied forces faced. And although casualties were much lighter at Utah beach, I’m surprised the landing there succeeded at all, after seeing the lay of the land for myself.

So, is this an example of the Mandela Effect?
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 05, 2017, 07:29:51 pm
It could be in that the effect is in having a vastly different memory from what reality currently presents to most. I would have to consult with my dad who is a serious world war II buff to know the context, but let me ask you this without googling: What color were Hitler's eyes?
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 05, 2017, 07:41:35 pm
 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Hoopla on July 05, 2017, 09:51:22 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.


I remember noticing C-3PO's silver leg as a kid in the early 80s. And most people assume the JFK convertible was a 4-seater. I don't think that is all that unusual.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 05, 2017, 10:41:45 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.


I remember noticing C-3PO's silver leg as a kid in the early 80s. And most people assume the JFK convertible was a 4-seater. I don't think that is all that unusual.

There's a lot of folks who don't remember these things including myself. As for the causes I leave that to others to speculate about or scoff over, but it's a thing that is actually happening to folks. I merely report my own experience and what others seem to believe.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Hoopla on July 05, 2017, 10:47:21 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.


I remember noticing C-3PO's silver leg as a kid in the early 80s. And most people assume the JFK convertible was a 4-seater. I don't think that is all that unusual.

There's a lot of folks who don't remember these things including myself. As for the causes I leave that to others to speculate about or scoff over, but it's a thing that is actually happening to folks. I merely report my own experience and what others seem to believe.

My speculation is faulty memory, but I am notoriously boring.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 05, 2017, 11:46:22 pm
It could be in that the effect is in having a vastly different memory from what reality currently presents to most. I would have to consult with my dad who is a serious world war II buff to know the context, but let me ask you this without googling: What color were Hitler's eyes?

The vast majority of the pictures I've seen of him were in black and white. But, my guess, without googling, is brown.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 06, 2017, 05:04:04 am
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.


I remember noticing C-3PO's silver leg as a kid in the early 80s. And most people assume the JFK convertible was a 4-seater. I don't think that is all that unusual.

There's a lot of folks who don't remember these things including myself. As for the causes I leave that to others to speculate about or scoff over, but it's a thing that is actually happening to folks. I merely report my own experience and what others seem to believe.

My speculation is faulty memory, but I am notoriously boring.

My baseless assertion is that you must be native to this universe.

Betcha I'm right.  :p
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 06, 2017, 05:07:28 am
It could be in that the effect is in having a vastly different memory from what reality currently presents to most. I would have to consult with my dad who is a serious world war II buff to know the context, but let me ask you this without googling: What color were Hitler's eyes?

The vast majority of the pictures I've seen of him were in black and white. But, my guess, without googling, is brown.

That was my known fact, brown. But nope. Blue as the sky. Google him and look for a color pic. Or.. don't.

I remember darker eyes,
now they appear otherwise.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on July 06, 2017, 05:18:02 am
I remember quips about Hitler's "Master Race" being a bunch of hogwash because even his own eyes were brown. But... I assume it's just a large number of people getting the wrong idea from black and white photos.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 06, 2017, 05:57:50 am
It could be in that the effect is in having a vastly different memory from what reality currently presents to most. I would have to consult with my dad who is a serious world war II buff to know the context, but let me ask you this without googling: What color were Hitler's eyes?

The vast majority of the pictures I've seen of him were in black and white. But, my guess, without googling, is brown.

That was my known fact, brown. But nope. Blue as the sky. Google him and look for a color pic. Or.. don't.

I remember darker eyes,
now they appear otherwise.

I played the game fairly. I didn’t google for color photos of him before I posted my reply. And, I didn’t want to deprive you of an “I told you so” moment, in the event I guessed wrong.

However, in my case, I don’t believe this counts as a Mandela Effect moment, as I never knew, thought I knew, discussed, cared about, or ever even thought about Hitler’s eye color before reading and answering your post. Similarly, if I didn’t know one of Frank Sinatra’s nicknames was Ol’ Blue Eyes, I would have guessed he had brown eyes too, if asked. The bottom line being that not knowing the nickname, I would not have known for certain, or really cared. (I doubt Frank ever gave a damn about my eye color either.)
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 06, 2017, 06:47:13 am
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY)
The above is a link to a high quality version of the "Zapruder film" of JFK's assassination. Notice anything different? I remember a different angle and a 4 seater sedan not 6. The final headshot looks different to me as well.
 There's a lot of material covering this ME on youtube. I remember when the big going theory was the driver shot him from several frames that might be construed as him turning back towards Kennedy with a "gun" that was too blurry to be sure of, but bare moments before the final shot. None of these frames exist anymore and the going theory, for a long time now apparently, is that JACKIE might have shot him.

Tell me I'm crazy. This freaked me out more than even C-3po's silver leg.

The only thing I noticed new is the bouquet of flowers flying though the air. I don’t remember seeing that before.

I do/did know the car was equipped with two “jump seats,” but I’m not really sure when I learned of it. I do know that contemporary media descriptions and reenactments of the assassination always placed John Connally as sitting in the front seat of the car, not on a fold-down jump seat in the back. But remember, this was in the days before the internet, and cheap and plentiful high-quality cameras. And, I doubt the press had access to the car for some time after the assassination.   

I never noticed C-3PO’s silver leg, but that doesn’t really freak me out. When watching my favorite movies a second, third, etc. time, I almost always see things I didn’t notice the first time around.

I do, however, clearly remember Obi-Wan Kenobi cutting an “insect-villain” in half with his light saber in the bar scene of the original movie. I believe that scene was cut from the movie within a month, or two, of the film’s opening.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 03:47:23 pm
Aren't there like 3 or 4 different cuts of A New Hope though?
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2017, 03:51:55 pm
It could be in that the effect is in having a vastly different memory from what reality currently presents to most. I would have to consult with my dad who is a serious world war II buff to know the context, but let me ask you this without googling: What color were Hitler's eyes?

The vast majority of the pictures I've seen of him were in black and white. But, my guess, without googling, is brown.

That was my known fact, brown. But nope. Blue as the sky. Google him and look for a color pic. Or.. don't.

I remember darker eyes,
now they appear otherwise.

This is explainable by conflation with the irony that his hair wasn't blond, blond hair and blue eyes being 2 of the nazis' standards for aryan beauty and perfection.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Cramulus on July 06, 2017, 07:50:11 pm
Just for posterity
The Mandela Effect is just false memories + the sleeper effect.


The mechanism is that when you imagine something that happened in the past, at first, your brain can easily tell the difference between the real memory and the imagined scenario. But that imagined scenario gets stored much like a real memory does.

Over time, the "metadata" decays--it becomes harder to distinguish the real memory from the imagined one. The weaker a memory, the more vulnerable you are to being misled by false memories.



like


Do you remember how it rained during your prom?

imagine that

imagine it really hard, visualize it, tell me some details about it




10 years from now, you won't be so sure it didn't rain.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Hoopla on July 06, 2017, 08:16:19 pm
Just for posterity
The Mandela Effect is just false memories + the sleeper effect.


The mechanism is that when you imagine something that happened in the past, at first, your brain can easily tell the difference between the real memory and the imagined scenario. But that imagined scenario gets stored much like a real memory does.

Over time, the "metadata" decays--it becomes harder to distinguish the real memory from the imagined one. The weaker a memory, the more vulnerable you are to being misled by false memories.



like


Do you remember how it rained during your prom?

imagine that

imagine it really hard, visualize it, tell me some details about it




10 years from now, you won't be so sure it didn't rain.

I'm now imagining it raining during my prom... I didn't even go to prom.  :eek:
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 07, 2017, 02:26:03 am
Aren't there like 3 or 4 different cuts of A New Hope though?

I don’t really know.

I do know I saw the “insect-villain” scene in the original movie, in a theater, shortly after the movie was released under its original name. That would have been sometime in late spring/early summer of 1977.

I, and my sci-fi loving friends, were totally blown away by Star Wars. I never went to a theater to watch the same movie a second time, but for that one I made an exception. Again, I remember seeing the “insect-villain” scene. However, when Star Wars finally made it to TV, the “insect-villain” scene was gone, and I haven’t seen it on the tube since.

I don’t remember the time gaps between the original theater release, the TV premier, and the VCR release. (DVD’s didn’t exist yet.) And, I don’t remember different versions being available for VCR, as is common today with movies on DVD.

I never threw away our old VCR player, and I may have an old VCR tape of Star Wars lying around in a box somewhere. Someday, if I get really, really bored, I might just dig that stuff out. If I have the VCR version, I might just hook up the old VCR player, and see if the “insect-villain” scene is on it. I don’t clearly remember whether the scene in question was on VCR release version, or if it had been cut.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 07, 2017, 02:33:21 am
I was a giant star wars dork from the time I was old enough to have opinions, and while I did go to Jedi in the theaters, it's on a technicality, because I was still in my mom.

I have no memory of any "insect-villain" scene in any version I saw (original VHS release, TV release, remastered VHS, or Special Edition), or any mention of it in the volumes of trivia I consumed. I am going to spend some time googling now because you've got me curious, but in the spirit of the thread I wanted to state my recollection and bona fides for the record before fact checking myself.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 07, 2017, 05:14:23 am
I remember Obi-Wan cutting someone in half in the cantina but the only bug-like character I remember from ep.4 is Greedo, who appears later in the Cantina scene and is shot by Han Solo
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 07, 2017, 06:05:55 am
The deleted scene in the cantina featured an insectoid that was different from the praying mantis creature, and the more humaniod one (If that was an insectoid.) that Han Solo shot. The deleted creature resembled a tall, upright-walking cockroach more than anything else. I think it was brownish-green (I’m not 100 % sure of this.) in color, and spoke with a buzzing sound like an insect.

After confronting Obi Wan and Luke, Obi Wan warned the insectoid off, and, of course, it didn’t back down. Then, Obi Wan quickly cut it in half with his light saber, from top to bottom. The camera focused on a full frontal of the insectoid being split into two halves, with the two smoldering halves falling away on either side of the centerline where the creature had originally stood. It was quite graphic and memorable.

I did a Google search after my previous post, but I can’t find any reference to the scene I have just described.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Hoopla on July 07, 2017, 01:42:03 pm
The deleted scene in the cantina featured an insectoid that was different from the praying mantis creature, and the more humaniod one (If that was an insectoid.) that Han Solo shot. The deleted creature resembled a tall, upright-walking cockroach more than anything else. I think it was brownish-green (I’m not 100 % sure of this.) in color, and spoke with a buzzing sound like an insect.

After confronting Obi Wan and Luke, Obi Wan warned the insectoid off, and, of course, it didn’t back down. Then, Obi Wan quickly cut it in half with his light saber, from top to bottom. The camera focused on a full frontal of the insectoid being split into two halves, with the two smoldering halves falling away on either side of the centerline where the creature had originally stood. It was quite graphic and memorable.

I did a Google search after my previous post, but I can’t find any reference to the scene I have just described.

I have zero memory of such a scene, or ever hearing of such a scene being cut. We should ask Suu.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 08, 2017, 01:06:11 am
The deleted scene in the cantina featured an insectoid that was different from the praying mantis creature, and the more humaniod one (If that was an insectoid.) that Han Solo shot. The deleted creature resembled a tall, upright-walking cockroach more than anything else. I think it was brownish-green (I’m not 100 % sure of this.) in color, and spoke with a buzzing sound like an insect.

After confronting Obi Wan and Luke, Obi Wan warned the insectoid off, and, of course, it didn’t back down. Then, Obi Wan quickly cut it in half with his light saber, from top to bottom. The camera focused on a full frontal of the insectoid being split into two halves, with the two smoldering halves falling away on either side of the centerline where the creature had originally stood. It was quite graphic and memorable.

I did a Google search after my previous post, but I can’t find any reference to the scene I have just described.

I have zero memory of such a scene, or ever hearing of such a scene being cut. We should ask Suu.

I admit, I must now question the validity of my memory. Given the staggering number of Star Wars fanatics who have documented every minutia there is to be found concerning the franchise, it’s more than odd that I seem to be the only one that remembers that scene.

Still, I can’t think of any good reason why I would retain this kind of old, false memory. I don’t remember any other movie, TV show, etc. that ever utilized the light saber prop other than the Star Wars franchise. So, I believe it’s unlikely I’m confusing a scene from another movie, etc. with the scene only I seem to remember in Star Wars.

And, as far as simply “dreaming it up” goes, I very rarely have violent dreams. But, when I do have a violent dream, I clearly remember it, and can almost always relate it to some real, previous stressful situation in my life. And, most important, I am never simply a passive observer of someone else’s fight in one of my rare violent dreams.

So …
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 08, 2017, 01:01:38 pm
Okay! I can solve this one!

Here's a link to the original script: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-A-New-Hope.html
Quote
A large, multiple-eyed Creature gives Luke a rough shove.

                                     CREATURE
                         Negola dewaghi wooldugger?!?

               The hideous freak is obviously drunk. Luke tries to ignore
               the creature and turns back on his drink. A short, grubby
               Human and an even smaller rodent-like beast join the
               belligerent monstrosity.

                                     HUMAN
                         He doesn't like you.

                                     LUKE
                         I'm sorry.

                                     HUMAN
                         I don't like you either.

               The big creature is getting agitated and yells out some
               unintelligible gibberish at the now rather nervous, young
               adventurer.

                                     HUMAN
                         Don't insult us. You just watch
                         yourself. We're wanted men. I have
                         the death sentence in twelve systems.

                                     LUKE
                         I'll be careful than.

                                     HUMAN
                         You'll be dead.

               The rodent lets out a loud grunt and everything at the bar
               moves away. Luke tries to remain cool but it isn't easy. His
               three adversaries ready their weapons. Old Ben moves in behind
               Luke.

                                     BEN
                         This little one isn't worth the
                         effort. Come let me buy you
                         something...

               A powerful blow from the unpleasant creature sends the young
               would-be Jedi sailing across the room, crashing through tables
               and breaking a large jug filled with a foul-looking liquid.
               With a blood curdling shriek, the monster draws a wicked
               chrome laser pistol from his belt and levels it at old Ben.
               The bartender panics.

                                     BARTENDER
                         No blasters! No blaster!

               With astounding agility old Ben's laser sword sparks to life
               and in a flash an arm lies on the floor. The rodent is cut
               in two and the giant multiple-eyed creature lies doubled,
               cut from chin to groin.
Ben carefully and precisely turns
               off his laser sword and replaces it on his utility belt.
               Luke, shaking and totally amazed at the old man's abilities,
               attempts to stand. The entire fight has lasted only a matter
               of seconds. The cantina goes back to normal, although Ben is
               given a respectable amount of room at the bar. Luke, rubbing
               his bruised head, approaches the old man with new awe. Ben
               points the the Wookiee.

The smaller critter was not in the scene as filmed, as evidenced by everyone else's memory but also this wookiepedia page http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cornelius_Evazan
Quote
Evazan wasn't named and was described as a "short, grubby-looking human" with a surprisingly deep voice. In his scene, he was accompanied by a many-eyed and a rodent-like alien—early incarnations of Ponda Baba and Kabe respectively—and when they picked a fight with Luke Skywalker, Baba tossed Skywalker aside, and Obi-Wan Kenobi sliced off Evazan's arm and cut Kabe and Baba in half, with Evazan retreating into the crowd without a word following the fight,[22] nearly identical to how the event played out in several revised fourth drafts of A New Hope.[23] In the final version of the film, however, Kabe didn't partake in the altercation, Baba only lost his arm, and it was instead Evazan who flung aside Skywalker and got slashed across the chest by Kenobi.[3] Upon closer examination of the sequence, however,[24] Evazan can be seen talking to Kabe before the scuffle,[3] indicating that the idea of them being allies may have lasted up to shooting.[24]

It's possible you read the script at some point and visualized the fight more or less as described and then conflated that with the real memory of the movie. I find it unlikely that you're correctly remembering an early cut that was revised before broader release, largely because this is what Kabe looks like: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kabe
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on July 08, 2017, 01:56:01 pm
Might also be thinking of this guy, whose mouth butt is somewhat reminiscent of a spider's fangs

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ponda_Baba
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 08, 2017, 07:20:23 pm
Thank you for all of the effort you have put into researching this scene. I now feel much better, as I am reassured that the scene was actually filmed, and was briefly shown during the movie’s first theater run. I do find is odd that the scene isn’t showing up on YouTube, like a lot of other deleted scenes, but again, I am now reassured that it was actually filmed, and was very quickly edited out of the movie. I suspect Lucas decided, on his own, that the scene was to violent for the children that were flocking to see the movie, as it would have already passed motion picture industry rating standards for it have been there in the first place.

Your guess concerning a possible source for my memory is reasonable. But, I have never read any Star Wars franchise scripts, and this is a memory that goes back forty years to 1977. And, there was no Internet back in 1977, and I doubt the original script was available to the general public in any format back in those days.


               With astounding agility old Ben's laser sword sparks to life
               and in a flash an arm lies on the floor. The rodent is cut
               in two and the giant multiple-eyed creature lies doubled,
               cut from chin to groin.
Ben carefully and precisely turns
               off his laser sword and replaces it on his utility belt.


The above quote is significant. I don’t remember the rodent creature being cut it two. But, I do clearly remember the “giant multiple-eyed creature.”

This really did happen.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 08, 2017, 07:56:10 pm
Might also be thinking of this guy, whose mouth butt is somewhat reminiscent of a spider's fangs

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ponda_Baba

Thank you for researching this, but that is not the creature I remember. And, the scene description on the wikia page does not match my memory of want happened.

As per my above post, I’m now reassured that the cantina scene did happen, pretty much, as I remember it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 08, 2017, 09:20:22 pm
You've convinced yourself of a lie, but it seems like a harmless one so you do you.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 08, 2017, 10:14:15 pm
You've convinced yourself of a lie, but it seems like a harmless one so you do you.

And thank you for not being the least bit judgmental of my recollection.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 09, 2017, 04:07:14 am
You've convinced yourself of a lie, but it seems like a harmless one so you do you.

And thank you for not being the least bit judgmental of my recollection.

That's the whole thing about this "effect". Folks are SERIOUSLY arguing over these recollections. The total impact of the thing is much greater than just a description of the mechanisms of memory and its fallibility.

There are folks sincerely at odds over whether it's Oscar Meyer or the "current" name Oscar Mayer on their lunch meat or whether or not there was ever a hyphen in KitKat.

Where did Curious George's tail go?
I don't know. Was it Berenstien bears,
or Berenstain? The only thing more
insane than the glitch is the fights!
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 09, 2017, 04:14:00 am
Just for posterity
The Mandela Effect is just false memories + the sleeper effect.


The mechanism is that when you imagine something that happened in the past, at first, your brain can easily tell the difference between the real memory and the imagined scenario. But that imagined scenario gets stored much like a real memory does.

Over time, the "metadata" decays--it becomes harder to distinguish the real memory from the imagined one. The weaker a memory, the more vulnerable you are to being misled by false memories.



like


Do you remember how it rained during your prom?

imagine that

imagine it really hard, visualize it, tell me some details about it




10 years from now, you won't be so sure it didn't rain.

Sounds like a nice, tidy, and perfectly sensible explanation. But is it correct in being "just" that? Surely some of the reported differences are just this or even full blown psychosis in action, but in your guts and expanded awareness you're working on are you certain?

Folks are willing to fight over this stuff. The bible stuff alone is enough to cause some serious Strife indeed.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on July 10, 2017, 02:54:35 pm
Mandela effect simply highlights one of the main problems with human memory. Unlike computer memory which is an actual thing and can losslessly store and retrieve data, human "memory" remembers practically nothing beyond a rough outline of vaguely accurate or utterly inaccurate crib notes, degrades like a motherfuckers over time and fills in the numerous blanks with totally made up bullshit every time it's accessed.

By the time you've remembered that hawt chick you saw the other night half a dozen times the chances are her hair is a different style and colour, her makeup is different and her clothes are different too. A year from now you'll find out she was actually a 40 year old fat guy.

Take it from me, if you don't write it down or take a photo then it probably never happened and it definitely never happened the way you recall it going down.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 10, 2017, 05:25:13 pm

I suspect another cause of the “Mandela Effect” may be outright, willful ignorance. And, based upon my own observations, military personnel are especially susceptible to believing, and propagating, “facts” that can be easily disproved.

For example, I’ve heard the story, at least a hundred times, that the battleship USS New Jersey could fire shells that were the size (Size always specifically meaning the physical dimensions of the shell, not its weight.) of a car. And, I’ve heard this story from sailors who actually served on smaller ships, mostly destroyers, that steamed with the USS New Jersey in its task force. Those particular sailors typically told the story as follows:

“This is no shit, the shells the New Jersey fired were so big, (How big were they?) we could see them flying through the air right over our ship! The New Jersey could fire shells that were as big as a car!”

(Do you know the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story? Well, a fairy tale begins with “Once upon a time,” while a sea story begins with “This is no shit.”)

Anyway, most of the time I let that story go in one ear, and out the other. But, every once in a while, I was told the story by some dumbass, redneck lifer, for whom I had developed a serious dislike. On those special occasions, my retort would usually go something like this:

“So, the New Jersey was equipped with 16 inch guns, right?” I would ask.

“Yeah, that’s what I told you, Obscenity. It had nine of them,” the lifer would proudly reply.

“And 16 inches is about like, this wide, right?” I would ask, while holding the tips of my index fingers about that far apart.

“Yeah, that’s about right,” the lifer would answer.

“And those shells were what, about five feet long?” I would then ask.

“Yeah, that’s about right,” the lifer would answer.

“So, 16 inches wide by five feet long. That’s not even close to being the size of a car. That’s more like the size of a little, six year old kid.”

Upon hearing that, the lifer would, typically, just stand there with a dumbfounded look on his face.

Typically, the same people, who told the above story, also claimed the recoil from the firing of a full broadside was so powerful that it would push the ship 1,000 feet sideways through the water.

Now, I never believed the USS New Jersey could be thrust sideways anywhere near 1,000 feet when it fired a broadside, but I did believe it could be moved sideways by some noticeable distance. However, as I came to learn much, much later, not one bit of that story is true either! (When it fired a full broadside, the ship wasn’t thrust sideways through the water at all!)   

I could list many more examples of “willful ignorance” in the military, but I think most people will get the idea from my above recollections.
Title: Re: ITT Mandela Effect fuckery biblical or otherwise
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 11, 2017, 02:01:45 pm
Mandela effect simply highlights one of the main problems with human memory. Unlike computer memory which is an actual thing and can losslessly store and retrieve data, human "memory" remembers practically nothing beyond a rough outline of vaguely accurate or utterly inaccurate crib notes, degrades like a motherfuckers over time and fills in the numerous blanks with totally made up bullshit every time it's accessed.

By the time you've remembered that hawt chick you saw the other night half a dozen times the chances are her hair is a different style and colour, her makeup is different and her clothes are different too. A year from now you'll find out she was actually a 40 year old fat guy.

Take it from me, if you don't write it down or take a photo then it probably never happened and it definitely never happened the way you recall it going down.

Even those things are apparently unreliabe is what I take as the real sticking point in the whole Mandela thing. It's taking your fallible ass memory and causing you to doubt the usual crutches as reliable.

The obsessive:
"God I could swear my baby was wearing red shoes the day I took this picture."
*Mandela Effect*
"HOLY SHIT I'M SO SHOOK BRUH MY DAUGHTER WASN'T WEARING BLUE SHOES THAT DAY I FUCKING KNOW IT!!!!!"

Or the schizophrenic:
"Holy shit they're summoning demons and shredding the fabric of reality at CERN!!"
*Mandela Effect*
"Holy shit they're summoning demons and shredding the fabric of reality at CERN!!!"

The attention whore:
My baby is just so darn cute! Look at her in her new jammies! #nightynight #lovemybaby
*Mandela Effect*
Come see ALL NEW Mandelas! My baby used to be a boy!! #AreYouWoke #shook #NewMandelas