More than a third of Americans don't buy a home because of this

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I’m not fretting  but just following the reason and evidence. There’s more examples for each Mandela Effect I accept but presenting them will end us in the same place my other example left us. 
 

I’m saying our reality is like a plastic object as it has a clear defined shape we all agree upon but it can be bent just slightly too without breaking.

How it all works in detail is beyond me.

I believe normal memory errors occur all the time. I am saying the Mandela Effects are indeed something different and more profound. 

More profound? Perhaps to some but to the logical person they see the only thing we have with mandella effect phenomenon is a bunch of people who refuse likely due to ego to accept their memories are flawed and its how the brain works.

You dont have anything else to support its more than flawed memory, unless of course you have other evidences which we both know if you had you would have posted,

When i say you fret im not being mean nut you care way too much about how i think and my opinions on stuff i really do not care when you or anyone has a claim they can not back up.

[the13bats]

Dont be sad papa while i do not agree with many of your opinions basically none and in some cases just cant hardly accept a person can be that gullible and naive and delusion based ive come to the conclusion you are sincere and in that you carry my respect.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

Dont be sad papa while i do not agree with many of your opinions basically none and in some cases just cant hardly accept a person can be that gullible and naive and delusion based ive come to the conclusion you are sincere and in that you carry my respect.

That reads as insulting not respectful. Don't even try, you are so obvious to me. I certainly don't need your agreement on a thing. I only argue hoping some people see some points (it's called sowing seeds). We are apparently not important to each other.

[the13bats]

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That reads as insulting not respectful. Don't even try, you are so obvious to me. I certainly don't need your agreement on a thing. I only argue hoping some people see some points (it's called sowing seeds). We are apparently not important to each other.

Sorry you took it that way i was being sincere,

Wait, people will pop in who believe they remember ed McMahon as part of PCH and like you they will leap to it has to be paranormal others will say they remember it the wrong way and agree its flawed memory and still others like myself will remember it as it actually was.

Have a good one, hope you feel better soon,

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 4/10/2021 at 5:43 PM, papageorge1 said:

I only argue hoping some people see some points (it's called sowing seeds).

Are you of the opinion that everything that you have a memory of truly happened in a way that agrees with your memory?  If not, which is really the only reasonable answer, how do you determine which memories are corrupted naturally and which instead are examples of the Mandela effect?

That's the problem with most of the Mandela effect examples, what is remembered/misremembered is so close to the current reality and worse there seems to always be obvious reasons and evidence how the misremembering likely occurred; things like Berenstain being remembered as Berenstein is so obvious it really doesn't require an explanation.  It's a very interesting phenomenon scientifically as an example of how we remember and misremember things, it's just very weak tea for different reality stuff.  It's not like we have examples like, "I distinctly remember San Diego being attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7th, 1941".

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Are you of the opinion that everything that you have a memory of truly happened in a way that agrees with your memory?  If not, which is really the only reasonable answer, how do you determine which memories are corrupted naturally and which instead are examples of the Mandela effect?

That's the problem with most of the Mandela effect examples, what is remembered/misremembered is so close to the current reality and worse there seems to always be obvious reasons and evidence how the misremembering likely occurred; things like Berenstain being remembered as Berenstein is so obvious it really doesn't require an explanation.  It's a very interesting phenomenon scientifically as an example of how we remember and misremember things, it's just very weak tea for different reality stuff.  It's not like we have examples like, "I distinctly remember San Diego being attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7th, 1941".

I find this subject intriguing up to a point and recall papa admtting he knows memory is flawed but not with this he is 100% sure his memory not reality backed by historical records is correct.

While i do believe ego plays a part in that some just cant admit their memory is wrong and they are human what triggered me to keep babbling about it was your remark about the memories in question are not worlds a part, they are actually very close like "Jif" or "jiffy" and early ads used jiffy as in lunch in a jiffy. So it not reaching too see how that false memory happened.

So in what i feel like is a pretty big "doh" moment on me i went and looked up "mandela effect" again.

Im down right red faced to learn the term "mandela effect" isnt all that old and it was coined by Fiona Broome, a self-identified “paranormal consultant". 

I didnt keep going to see to what if any degree she pushes the tangent universe idea but she did take the concept of false memory, gave it a colorful sounding name with "effect" tacked on for extra drama and has a lot of folks jump on the bandwagen who wont admit their memory is whats flawed here.

 

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Are you of the opinion that everything that you have a memory of truly happened in a way that agrees with your memory?  If not, which is really the only reasonable answer, how do you determine which memories are corrupted naturally and which instead are examples of the Mandela effect?

That's the problem with most of the Mandela effect examples, what is remembered/misremembered is so close to the current reality and worse there seems to always be obvious reasons and evidence how the misremembering likely occurred; things like Berenstain being remembered as Berenstein is so obvious it really doesn't require an explanation.  It's a very interesting phenomenon scientifically as an example of how we remember and misremember things, it's just very weak tea for different reality stuff.  

I am a believer that the Mandela Effect is in another class of phenomena from normal memory errors. Why? the level of certainty along with others certainty. Like if Mickey Mouse changed to Mikey Mouse tomorrow people will say it's always been that way. Would you on that example?

Secondly there is residue meaning things from the past we can see now that do not make sense if it was always the accepted way we find things now. I gave one small example in this thread with Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon.

And for me I had my own personal experience with the Flintstones/Flinstones flip/flop which I have shared multiple times on this forum. This cleared up for me any doubt that this phenomena does not makes sense in our straightforward understanding of how reality works. But I understand you can have logical reason to doubt my competency during the event tat convinced me. 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's not like we have examples like, "I distinctly remember San Diego being attacked by the Japanese on Dec 7th, 1941".

How about 'People distinctly remember Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1990's'? (I didn't personally experience that Mandela Effect).

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

How about 'People distinctly remember Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1990's'? (I didn't personally experience that Mandela Effect).

Um no, people have that false memory just like your false memories about rich simmons, ed McMahon and the flintstones, its just your ego is far too big to admit your memory is flawed,

oh btw the Mandela effect about mandela was the 80s not the 90s so your memory failed you there too.

If there is any phenomenon here its why cant some people get past ego.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Why? the level of certainty along with others certainty.

I see no evidence that how certain someone is really is relevant about things like this; many have the highest level of certainty possible about their religious beliefs, and those all can't be true.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Like if Mickey Mouse changed to Mikey Mouse tomorrow people will say it's always been that way. Would you on that example?

No, but that's what I was just saying, Mickey Mouse is on a whole other scale of popularity, and most importantly current memory, then most of the examples.  In the western world there was never any competition awareness-wise between Mickey Mouse and Nelson Mandela.  Furthermore this always happens with things in the past that people haven't seen in a long time; never heard of anyone saying, 'but I just watched a Flinstones episode yesterday'.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Secondly there is residue meaning things from the past we can see now that do not make sense if it was always the accepted way we find things now. I gave one small example in this thread with Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon.

Now that is just not very good reasoning, that Carson clip makes perfect sense.  Publisher's Clearing House is the most popular sweepstakes company, the one McMahon worked for never got its name out to the degree, if at all.  The Carson clip is on the Letterman show; you don't honestly believe Ed McMahon had something to with this gag?  These shows do have writers?  Who are you expecting to know accurately what companies Ed was doing ads for at the time?  This is an obvious and simple mistake, unless you can come up with some reasonable argument that anyone involved, Carson, Letterman, the joke writers, should have obviously known about the specific sweepstakes Ed worked for which almost no one has heard of then it seems obvious what happened here.  You might as well be pointing out that the size of Johnny's check isn't the same size as the PCH ones so then there's more Mandela effect 'residue'.  It's endless.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

And for me I had my own personal experience with the Flintstones/Flinstones flip/flop which I have shared multiple times on this forum. This cleared up for me any doubt that this phenomena does not makes sense in our straightforward understanding of how reality works. But I understand you can have logical reason to doubt my competency during the event tat convinced me.

I've had my own personal experience with Berenstain/Berenstein.  It makes perfect sense with how reality works, you are simply making assumptions about human memory that conflict with what the experts' (not laymen 'our') understanding of how memory works.  I don't know what 'competency' really I can doubt, it's not like there's any special skill involved in evaluating this effect that I'm aware of; 'he sure is a good, reliable rememberer', I can't evaluate that.  So since I've had the same experience, why do you think I'm not at all convinced?  My experience does agree with current psychological knowledge, this isn't even at the level of NDEs which I think there have been at least some limited studies of.  It seems like science's attitude towards the Mandela effect is, "yea, that's not a surprise".

[papageorge1]

42 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Um no, people have that false memory just like your false memories about rich simmons, ed McMahon and the flintstones, its just your ego is far too big to admit your memory is flawed,

oh btw the Mandela effect about mandela was the 80s not the 90s so your memory failed you there too.

If there is any phenomenon here its why cant some people get past ego.

 

To contradict your whole thrust I accept that I confused the decades for Mandela’s alleged death. And my Flintstones flip/flop was live and real-time and didn’t even involve any long term memory.

[papageorge1]

36 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I see no evidence that how certain someone is really is relevant about things like this; many have the highest level of certainty possible about their religious beliefs, and those all can't be true.

No, but that's what I was just saying, Mickey Mouse is on a whole other scale of popularity, and most importantly current memory, then most of the examples.  In the western world there was never any competition awareness-wise between Mickey Mouse and Nelson Mandela.  Furthermore this always happens with things in the past that people haven't seen in a long time; never heard of anyone saying, 'but I just watched a Flinstones episode yesterday'.

Now that is just not very good reasoning, that Carson clip makes perfect sense.  Publisher's Clearing House is the most popular sweepstakes company, the one McMahon worked for never got its name out to the degree, if at all.  The Carson clip is on the Letterman show; you don't honestly believe Ed McMahon had something to with this gag?  These shows do have writers?  Who are you expecting to know accurately what companies Ed was doing ads for at the time?  This is an obvious and simple mistake, unless you can come up with some reasonable argument that anyone involved, Carson, Letterman, the joke writers, should have obviously known about the specific sweepstakes Ed worked for which almost no one has heard of then it seems obvious what happened here.  You might as well be pointing out that the size of Johnny's check isn't the same size as the PCH ones so then there's more Mandela effect 'residue'.  It's endless.

I've had my own personal experience with Berenstain/Berenstein.  It makes perfect sense with how reality works, you are simply making assumptions about human memory that conflict with what the experts' (not laymen 'our') understanding of how memory works.  I don't know what 'competency' really I can doubt, it's not like there's any special skill involved in evaluating this effect that I'm aware of; 'he sure is a good, reliable rememberer', I can't evaluate that.  So since I've had the same experience, why do you think I'm not at all convinced?  My experience does agree with current psychological knowledge, this isn't even at the level of NDEs which I think there have been at least some limited studies of.  It seems like science's attitude towards the Mandela effect is, "yea, that's not a surprise".

Well, we’re not going to convince each other. I also go to another forum that is strong in the Mandela Effect world and have read so many  very persuasive personal experiences of people that had more than normal connection with the effect. That is probably a difference between us; The type of information we expose ourselves too. By now I know all the anti-Mandela Effect arguments out there too and weigh the two sides against each other.

Edited April 12, 2021 by papageorge1

[the13bats]

56 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

To contradict your whole thrust I accept that I confused the decades for Mandela’s alleged death. And my Flintstones flip/flop was live and real-time and didn’t even involve any long term memory.

I have no "trust" i just find anyone who makes claims their memory is 100% to be delusional,

Your mandela date death fail just further proves that.

And your flintstone thing has no proof it happened and if it did wasnt a net type failure.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I see no evidence that how certain someone is really is relevant about things like this; many have the highest level of certainty possible about their religious beliefs, and those all can't be true.

No, but that's what I was just saying, Mickey Mouse is on a whole other scale of popularity, and most importantly current memory, then most of the examples.  In the western world there was never any competition awareness-wise between Mickey Mouse and Nelson Mandela.  Furthermore this always happens with things in the past that people haven't seen in a long time; never heard of anyone saying, 'but I just watched a Flinstones episode yesterday'.

Now that is just not very good reasoning, that Carson clip makes perfect sense.  Publisher's Clearing House is the most popular sweepstakes company, the one McMahon worked for never got its name out to the degree, if at all.  The Carson clip is on the Letterman show; you don't honestly believe Ed McMahon had something to with this gag?  These shows do have writers?  Who are you expecting to know accurately what companies Ed was doing ads for at the time?  This is an obvious and simple mistake, unless you can come up with some reasonable argument that anyone involved, Carson, Letterman, the joke writers, should have obviously known about the specific sweepstakes Ed worked for which almost no one has heard of then it seems obvious what happened here.  You might as well be pointing out that the size of Johnny's check isn't the same size as the PCH ones so then there's more Mandela effect 'residue'.  It's endless.

I've had my own personal experience with Berenstain/Berenstein.  It makes perfect sense with how reality works, you are simply making assumptions about human memory that conflict with what the experts' (not laymen 'our') understanding of how memory works.  I don't know what 'competency' really I can doubt, it's not like there's any special skill involved in evaluating this effect that I'm aware of; 'he sure is a good, reliable rememberer', I can't evaluate that.  So since I've had the same experience, why do you think I'm not at all convinced?  My experience does agree with current psychological knowledge, this isn't even at the level of NDEs which I think there have been at least some limited studies of.  It seems like science's attitude towards the Mandela effect is, "yea, that's not a surprise".

Ive said alot if that to him and he ignores it.

If i still a frame with the letterman gag im pretty sure the check even reads " american family publishing" but he sure does not have PCH on it.

Being certain or sincere isnt the measure of truth a person can be either or both and dead wrong most charlatans are very certain and sincere, it really doesnt apply here.

A mentally ill person can be certain its raining gumdrops but we can easily see thats not the case.

 

[papageorge1]

16 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I have no "trust" i just find anyone who makes claims their memory is 100% to be delusional,

 

I never would claim my memory is 100% on everything. I’ll go 100% on there being a Mickey Mouse though.

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I never would claim my memory is 100% on everything. I’ll go 100% on there being a Mickey Mouse though.

Flintstones should be pretty close then.  'Flin' is not a word, and it's a main gag in the whole cartoon of giving 'rock' names to things (Pebbles, Barney Rubble) to meet the caveman theme, ergo 'Flint'.  There's a reason we aren't recommending that people who insist they remember 'Flinstones' go to the doctor to see if something is wrong with them neurologically, and that's because this 'effect' is already understood.  It has a simple explanation that links directly to erroneous reasoning:  memory doesn't work at all like you seem to think it does or should.

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

That is probably a difference between us; The type of information we expose ourselves too. By now I know all the anti-Mandela Effect arguments out there too and weigh the two sides against each other.

I don't think you do, you didn't explain why 'certainty' ensures reliability in memory.  Either that or maybe you know the arguments but have no real response to them.  You retreat to this a lot, "I've read tons of stories on the internet about the paranormal and am convinced", as if it's just a matter of lack of research.  I take in what experts say about memory and its reliability and defer to them since neurology isn't a field that laymen like us have much expertise to evaluate, and since the entire Mandela effect seems to rely on making unsupported assumptions about how memories are generated and how they change over time. 

It's not the information we expose ourselves to, it's what we do with it.  It is logical to always factor in the question, "how do I know that this story I'm reading is true", and realize that most of the time with these topics you cannot, and since you can't that should reduce the confidence you have that the stories you're reading are true.  You know this deep down I think, this is part of the reason why the response, 'please provide the best most convincing evidence so I can look at it too', is always answered with, 'well, err, it doesn't work like that, you have to evaluate everything and then, somehow, it becomes more convincing'.  Which is a methodology that you don't really need to follow for any other topic, outside of maybe religious ones.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Flintstones should be pretty close then.  'Flin' is not a word, and it's a main gag in the whole cartoon of giving 'rock' names to things (Pebbles, Barney Rubble) to meet the caveman theme, ergo 'Flint'.  There's a reason we aren't recommending that people who insist they remember 'Flinstones' go to the doctor to see if something is wrong with them neurologically, and that's because this 'effect' is already understood.  It has a simple explanation that links directly to erroneous reasoning:  memory doesn't work at all like you seem to think it does or should.

 

I have an interesting story to the Flintstones Mandela Effect. In the story I have shared before and will do so again below, I was on an internet forum arguing just like you that the stone and rock naming gag is a pet technique for the show. I was arguing that those claiming that they have ever seen it Flinstones are just wrong or at best saw a misspelling in some third party reference. 

On that very day the universe smacked arrogant me in the face and flipped it real-time before my eyes in a way that no long-term memory was ever at play. 

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 and 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 looked 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.

 

Certainly Mr. Gardens, it is appropriate for you to question my honesty, accuracy and competence. I and many others can only be honest to the best of our abilities. For me, I believe something outside of our straightforward understanding of how reality works was likely at play in my experience. I do realize how revolutionary that sounds and this required a strong body of cases before I took that belief.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I don't think you do, you didn't explain why 'certainty' ensures reliability in memory.  Either that or maybe you know the arguments but have no real response to them.  You retreat to this a lot, "I've read tons of stories on the internet about the paranormal and am convinced", as if it's just a matter of lack of research.  I take in what experts say about memory and its reliability and defer to them since neurology isn't a field that laymen like us have much expertise to evaluate, and since the entire Mandela effect seems to rely on making unsupported assumptions about how memories are generated and how they change over time. 

It's not the information we expose ourselves to, it's what we do with it.  It is logical to always factor in the question, "how do I know that this story I'm reading is true", and realize that most of the time with these topics you cannot, and since you can't that should reduce the confidence you have that the stories you're reading are true.  You know this deep down I think, this is part of the reason why the response, 'please provide the best most convincing evidence so I can look at it too', is always answered with, 'well, err, it doesn't work like that, you have to evaluate everything and then, somehow, it becomes more convincing'.  Which is a methodology that you don't really need to follow for any other topic, outside of maybe religious ones.

Now, the Mandela Effect can easily be explained away as mental errors within the range of known science. But it is fair to ask the question: Are those the correct answers or does it also sometimes involve things more complicated including elements outside of the straightforward understanding of how reality works that scientists take as an assumption?

How do we get behind that question? In the end it is an opinion based on the cumulative claims. I am finding the deeper we go the more mysterious the universe becomes to science and the fabric of reality continues to become fuzzier so the Mandela Effect although stunning is not outside my limits for belief.

Edited April 13, 2021 by papageorge1

[TashaMarie]

18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

How about 'People distinctly remember Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1990's'? (I didn't personally experience that Mandela Effect).

How on earth did people think that when he was President of South Africa after his time in prison and more importantly met the Spice girls in 1997?

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, TashaMarie said:

How on earth did people think that when he was President of South Africa after his time in prison and more importantly met the Spice girls in 1997?

That is the Mandela Effect. You have experiences later that are not consistent with your previous experiences. It is a mystery how this works even to believers in the Mandela Effect. 

[TashaMarie]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is the Mandela Effect. You have experiences later that are not consistent with your previous experiences. It is a mystery how this works even to believers in the Mandela Effect. 

How does that work with believing Nelson died in prison, when he very clearly did not?

[papageorge1]

18 minutes ago, TashaMarie said:

How does that work with believing Nelson died in prison, when he very clearly did not?

The thought is that reality is not hard fixed but something more complicated and people can have real experiences that don't align with the current consensus reality.  

 

Here's an example. In normal reality my father died in 2005 and my brother and I are still living. One night after my father's death I had a dream where my brother, my father and myself were all interacting in our normal manner. During the dream I had an epiphany moment. I also remembered my father's funeral and said 'how can this now be'. In the dream my brother concurred with remembering the funeral but here we are all three of us interacting NOW. I remember he expressed complete bafflement in the dream and I as well and we were never able to solve this bafflement. Then during sleep when my bladder called I remember walking to the bathroom still in complete bafflement. Then after being awake for a minute it all made sense. My father was indeed dead and I just had a dream that had him still alive.

Now I wonder if the Mandela's early death experiencers will never be able to resolve their bafflement in their current waking state just as I could not resolve my bafflement in my dream state. They may need to take another ladder step up in reality to see it all make sense. I am saying as some speculate that even our waking reality is a dream to some even higher level of reality. <play twilight zone theme song>

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

Mandela Effect in a nutshell.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Xeno-Fish said:

Mandela Effect in a nutshell.

That is actually similar to what I am saying when we try to understand the Mandela Effect with our straightforward understanding of reality. It's not going to fit.

[TashaMarie]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The thought is that reality is not hard fixed but something more complicated and people can have real experiences that don't align with the current consensus reality.  

 

Here's an example. In normal reality my father died in 2005 and my brother and I are still living. One night after my father's death I had a dream where my brother, my father and myself were all interacting in our normal manner. During the dream I had an epiphany moment. I also remembered my father's funeral and said 'how can this now be'. In the dream my brother concurred with remembering the funeral but here we are all three of us interacting NOW. I remember he expressed complete bafflement in the dream and I as well and we were never able to solve this bafflement. Then during sleep when my bladder called I remember walking to the bathroom still in complete bafflement. Then after being awake for a minute it all made sense. My father was indeed dead and I just had a dream that had him still alive.

Now I wonder if the Mandela's early death experiencers will never be able to resolve their bafflement in their current waking state just as I could not resolve my bafflement in my dream state. They may need to take another ladder step up in reality to see it all make sense. I am saying as some speculate that even our waking reality is a dream to some even higher level of reality. <play twilight zone theme song>

 

 

 

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. 

 

[XenoFish]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is actually similar to what I am saying when we try to understand the Mandela Effect with our straightforward understanding of reality. It's not going to fit.

What I'm saying is that people, much like yourself, try to fit what they think is real into what is actually real.

[+Liquid Gardens]

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Then when I was done with my reply and I looked up at his original post and 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 looked 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.

Did you take any pictures when this occurred or do you not own a smartphone?  Seems that would be an obvious thing to do as this happened over 5 minutes, would obviously be what someone who is familiar with science would do as soon as the first change occurred, let alone 6-7 times.  After all, you've got a primo example of it happening real-time and your theory already involves 'residue'/glitches-in-the-Matrix where some of the other reality bleeds through to this one outside of just our memory (like your reference to the Carson clip), but I'm assuming you didn't do that.  But trust that you are much more thorough with your other analyses?

41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Certainly Mr. Gardens, it is appropriate for you to question my honesty, accuracy and competence. I and many others can only be honest to the best of our abilities.

I don't question your honesty, I don't think I've ever said anything about you or any other believers lying.  The issue is you don't seem to recognize the limits of our abilities.  I just had a similar experience to your Flinstone story above not too long ago on UM actually, someone posted this:

And I and several other people started discussing the merits of mandatory 'vaccinations', that was the word that I and others saw instead of the real one.  There is even someone on that thread saying how they read it several times and didn't catch that it was 'vacations', yet they're not reaching for a paranormal explanation despite their personal experience.  I misread it too; should I not be so confident about that, maybe this is another Mandela effect and I actually read it correctly the first time?  I and others even ignored in our misreading that this was posted in 'Jokes and Humour', that's how easily it is to miss things.  There are tons of optical illusions like this, you'll see many set up as pyramids with the same word duplicated on two lines which many people don't notice, scientists are not puzzling over how that can occur.  You don't think this can occur with 'Flinstones', which again doesn't make sense with the 'rock' naming convention on the cartoon, that is something that has stayed consistent in both supposed realities.  I just looked up the names of the Flintstone characters and none of them are consistent with using a non-word like 'Flin' in the name; Mr Slate, Joe Rockhead, Stoney Curtis, Perry Masonry, Pearl Slaghoople. In that context 'Flinstones' doesn't make sense in the other supposed reality either; I haven't heard of any Mandela effect with any of these other character names.

59 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now, the Mandela Effect can easily be explained away as mental errors within the range of known science.

This barely even needs to reach 'science', these are what everyone else calls 'brain farts' which science has amply shown exist.  Mandela effect is also pretty meaningless because it's foolproof, and thus isn't really much of an explanation for anything: you can attribute any mistake any one has ever made to reality changing.  "But professor, I didn't get that test answer wrong, the question changed since I took it!". "I swear there was no stop sign there when I sailed through that intersection, Officer".  And you can't seem to address how you are telling the difference between mistakes and reality changing, it seems to be how amazing or striking someone finds the experience that determines it, which I'm still waiting for a study or argument that shows makes the belief more credible.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

How do we get behind that question? In the end it is an opinion based on the cumulative claims.

It should be an opinion based on the strength and quality of the case and evidence, not just accumulation.  On one side you have a very basic psychological phenomenon with tons of evidence for it, on the other you have the argument that some percentage of the time this very basic phenomenon isn't actually occurring and is instead paranormal. Based on, well I'm not really sure what, seems to be a 'feeling' ('stunning', something trying to 'wake me up', etc).  You don't accept what I or other skeptics 'feel' when we have this same experience, so your opinion then doesn't seem unbiased.  

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is actually similar to what I am saying when we try to understand the Mandela Effect with our straightforward understanding of reality. It's not going to fit.

It fits perfectly.  You said you have thoroughly read all of the arguments concerning the Mandela Effect but seem to have skipped over the most important source: science.  Scientists have already provided an explanation for this, it fits with everything we know about memory until you pony up the evidence that our memory is 100% reliable, or any evidence of how reliable it actually is.