Fruit of the Loom Cornucopia Mandela Effect - New Absolutely Compelling Evidence

[the13bats]

33 minutes ago, Essan said:

By Papa's rationale, baskets and bowls must have been part of the design - otherwise the whole argument collapses into dust.

Thats what i said..lol.

[Tom1200]

The Mandela Effect MUST be real because I can remember threads about exactly the same topic, with exactly the same arguments on both sides, with exactly the same lack of common ground or progress.  That can't be right, can it?  Why would anyone want to start yet another thread about the same tired old nonsense about a logo nobody cares about?

The Mandela Effect is total tripe.¹  It was invented by a lazy flupp-witted 'blogger' who was too goddamned lazy to check something before exposing her lack of intellect to the world.  She thought Mandela had died in the 80s, then she was surprised to learn he hadn't.  Normal people caught out like that would accept they'd made a mistake then shut the flupp up.  Instead this dumb-a$$ed moron decided to broadcast her total stupidity by inventing an explanation for her ignorance.  Hence 'the Mandela Effect' - things you thought you knew then turned out to be wrong are the result of disruption to cosmic realities and disorder in parallel universes, NEVER your brain and memory failing you.  

One quick example: @Orphalesion summed up this whole b-s- perfectly when he wrote:

I also think the internet exaggerates the Mandela Effect. A lot of articles on the subjects start with stuff like  "We all remember that Curious George had a tail, right?". Truth is, very few of us probably ever thought about whether some cartoon monkey had a tail or not, but wording like that tends to put the reader into a mindset of "yeah, he had one" and when they then reveal that he never had a tail, it seems to the reader like they have experienced the Mandela effect.

I read that ten minutes ago.  But when I looked for it to include it as a quote - IT WAS GONE!  It's nowhere to be found!  It's as if the universe has disordered the cosmic parallels to disrupt my reality by planting 'false' real memories (or maybe 'real' false memories).  But then I found it in a different thread here so that solved an awkward dilemma for this rational skeptic.

Time to remind everyone of the very talented Dr Julia Shaw - 

who has spent literally a long time studying memory and false memory and has shown how easy it is to fool the human brain.  That's all that's happened here, and all @papageorge1's anecdotes and 'evidence' to the contrary are silly, pointless and can (and should) be ignored.  The brain is superb at linking A with B with C even if there is no meaningful correlation between A and C, and B is demonstrably false.  It's how interrogators can lead people into believing completely invented events really happened; even to the point of confessing to the murder of someone the prisoner 'knows' isn't dead!  

 

¹ But the bit highlighted above is what will stand out in your mind, even though it's obviously flippant and irreverent.  That's how headlines work, and political soundbites, and adverts.  Your brain remembers things that are different and stand out, even if they're plainly untrue.  And you might now recall that statement X or Y is false, but later the fact that you've remembered it makes your brain more inclined to believe it is true.

 

[+ouija ouija]

Maybe the logo was different in different countries. I'm in the UK and I distinctly remember having a t-shirt with the cornucopia logo on it. Perhaps at one time there was some imitation 'Fruit of the Loom' merchandise available and that had the cornucopia on it.

[Tiggs]

Going to leave this here:



A 1973 album cover: https://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/album-cover-of-the-week-flute-of-the-loom

[SHaYap]

Language matters... 

Quote

cornucopia

/ˌkɔːnjʊˈkəʊpɪə/

 

noun

1. a symbol of plenty consisting of a goat's horn overflowing with flowers, fruit, and corn.

   • an ornamental container shaped like a goat's horn.
   • an abundant supply of good things of a specified kind.

     "the festival offers a cornucopia of pleasures"

~

Quote

horn of plenty

 

Cornucopia comes from Latin cornu copiae, which translates literally as "horn of plenty." A traditional staple of feasts, the cornucopia is believed to represent the horn of a goat from Greek mythology. According to legend, it was from this horn that the god Zeus was fed as an infant.12 Mar 2022

https://www.merriam-webster.com › ...

Cornucopia Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

~

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by SHaYap
addendum

[CrimsonKing]

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

I was born in 64 and FotL white tighties were the go to drawers grandmother bought me and i always thought what a weird name "fruit of the loom" then she clued me in on what a loom was, i never paid much attention to the tag but being a cornucopia was a centerpiece to our holiday table i would have recalled it on the underwear lable and unlike papa i dont.

I do however recall logos that did use cornucopias.

I hear ya man, cornucopias we're big in history books about the history of Thanksgiving back in the day aswell...

Hell I really can't think of the name of the product I'm trying to remember,but it may have even been at some point sued by FOTL...

Here's ya a throwback, whatever I'm thinking about was a heavy advertised product at one point in time between shows like ALF,Perfect Strangers,and The Cosby show....

Your probably thinking,"hell I was living it up in those day,I don't remember goofy ass tv shows like that"...and hell I wouldn't blame ya 

[Occupational Hubris]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

Maybe the logo was different in different countries. I'm in the UK and I distinctly remember having a t-shirt with the cornucopia logo on it. Perhaps at one time there was some imitation 'Fruit of the Loom' merchandise available and that had the cornucopia on it.

You can find vintage FotL clothing on ebay. None of it has, or ever had, a cornucopia on it. 

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I hear ya man, cornucopias we're big in history books about the history of Thanksgiving back in the day aswell...

Hell I really can't think of the name of the product I'm trying to remember,but it may have even been at some point sued by FOTL...

Here's ya a throwback, whatever I'm thinking about was a heavy advertised product at one point in time between shows like ALF,Perfect Strangers,and The Cosby show....

Your probably thinking,"hell I was living it up in those day,I don't remember goofy ass tv shows like that"...and hell I wouldn't blame ya 

Living it up? I have been in the club, music , band biz since the early mid 80s but my OCD keeps pointless crap in my head, i was glued to TV. I too recall your cornucopia logo ad and tina also recalls it, im 57 and shes 47,

When i read lists of mandela effect examples never is even one a hit with me i recall all of them correctly, i can for example pick all the correct logos when offered 2 choices this drives my wife nuts she has a PhD in psychology and would teach this stuff at the college, i also have nervious,  panic issues so it comes with a price.

 

 

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

The Mandela Effect MUST be real because I can remember threads about exactly the same topic, with exactly the same arguments on both sides, with exactly the same lack of common ground or progress.  That can't be right, can it?  Why would anyone want to start yet another thread about the same tired old nonsense about a logo nobody cares about?

The Mandela Effect is total tripe.¹  It was invented by a lazy flupp-witted 'blogger' who was too goddamned lazy to check something before exposing her lack of intellect to the world.  She thought Mandela had died in the 80s, then she was surprised to learn he hadn't.  Normal people caught out like that would accept they'd made a mistake then shut the flupp up.  Instead this dumb-a$$ed moron decided to broadcast her total stupidity by inventing an explanation for her ignorance.  Hence 'the Mandela Effect' - things you thought you knew then turned out to be wrong are the result of disruption to cosmic realities and disorder in parallel universes, NEVER your brain and memory failing you.  

One quick example: @Orphalesion summed up this whole b-s- perfectly when he wrote:

I also think the internet exaggerates the Mandela Effect. A lot of articles on the subjects start with stuff like  "We all remember that Curious George had a tail, right?". Truth is, very few of us probably ever thought about whether some cartoon monkey had a tail or not, but wording like that tends to put the reader into a mindset of "yeah, he had one" and when they then reveal that he never had a tail, it seems to the reader like they have experienced the Mandela effect.

I read that ten minutes ago.  But when I looked for it to include it as a quote - IT WAS GONE!  It's nowhere to be found!  It's as if the universe has disordered the cosmic parallels to disrupt my reality by planting 'false' real memories (or maybe 'real' false memories).  But then I found it in a different thread here so that solved an awkward dilemma for this rational skeptic.

Time to remind everyone of the very talented Dr Julia Shaw - 

who has spent literally a long time studying memory and false memory and has shown how easy it is to fool the human brain.  That's all that's happened here, and all @papageorge1's anecdotes and 'evidence' to the contrary are silly, pointless and can (and should) be ignored.  The brain is superb at linking A with B with C even if there is no meaningful correlation between A and C, and B is demonstrably false.  It's how interrogators can lead people into believing completely invented events really happened; even to the point of confessing to the murder of someone the prisoner 'knows' isn't dead!  

 

¹ But the bit highlighted above is what will stand out in your mind, even though it's obviously flippant and irreverent.  That's how headlines work, and political soundbites, and adverts.  Your brain remembers things that are different and stand out, even if they're plainly untrue.  And you might now recall that statement X or Y is false, but later the fact that you've remembered it makes your brain more inclined to believe it is true.

 

 

i wanna add that when i came on the forum today i didnt look at other posts or my updates i jumped right to making my Mandela effect post, i do believe papas was posted before mine, and you see the very different mindsets me and papa have on this subject,

I was poking fun at myself and pointing out my faulty memory where papa is beating his fists and getting unhinged it proves some weird tangent universe thing.

Also where you mentioned the lady who came up with the term mandela effect for false memories she did this to try to profit off the naive and gullible, afaik she is still trying to get money from it.

 

[rashore]

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Most of us here are familiar with the Mandela Effect. It's been discussed multiple times on this forum. It's where people claim the current reality does not match their certain memory of the past. Some say it is all memory error. Others say it is a sign that reality is not this stable thing we assume it to be.

One of these cases involves the logo for Fruit of the Loom. I and millions of others remember fruit laying out in front of a cornucopia. The current version of reality is that there never was a cornucopia in the logo.

Today I came across a trademark logo from the U.S. government showing the logo without the cornucopia BUT in the text description from 1973 it discusses 'cornucopia (horn of plenty)'. 

Logo Patent document.

The image of the logo is at the top of the patent- it has no cornucopia. Or baskets, bowls, or other containers. Those are general search terms. Otherwise there would need to be some other containers as well as the cornucopia since they are also mentioned as descriptors.

Or in this trademark, it means there should be coconuts in the logo: https://trademarks.justia.com/720/55/fruit-of-the-loom-72055775.html

Or oranges, tangerines, grapefruit, and the like should be there: https://trademarks.justia.com/716/13/fruit-of-the-loom-71613810.html

If lack of a descriptor qualifies, there shouldn't be leaves, apples, or berries- or even any fruit at all according to some of the patent entries. 

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Maybe since you understood it you can tell me what @Occupational Hubris answer was to my question:

There are only four things. Three are exactly those things in the logo (and not other types of fruit some might think there). The fourth is the 'cornucopia (horn of plenty)'. Are saying this is a list of everything that can be searched on or something?

 

 

There are indeed only four things. Grapes, apple, leaves, and berries- white currants that later translated more into yellow gooseberries. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

The image of the logo is at the top of the patent- it has no cornucopia. Or baskets, bowls, or other containers. Those are general search terms. Otherwise there would need to be some other containers as well as the cornucopia since they are also mentioned as descriptors.

 

(I'll respond to the many here as this is professionally toned)

The speculation is that at the time (1973) when the document I presented was created the creators of the document were seeing a cornucopia. Hence it makes perfect sense that they would include code:

050914 -  Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia (horn of plenty).

Now the skeptical argument here is that the logo in 1973 looked exactly like it does today in the document and the use of the code is just some quirk in a complicated system.

1 hour ago, rashore said:

Or in this trademark, it means there should be coconuts in the logo: https://trademarks.justia.com/720/55/fruit-of-the-loom-72055775.html

 

It's not necessarily coconuts. It's coding:

050925 -  Other fruits including coconuts.

1 hour ago, rashore said:

 

Or oranges, tangerines, grapefruit, and the like should be there: https://trademarks.justia.com/716/13/fruit-of-the-loom-71613810.html

 

It's coded as:

050903 -  Oranges, tangerines and the like; grapefruit.

The 'and the like' phrase can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. This was 1951 and more exotic fruits may have been a grab bag back then?? I don't know why that code was used but it doesn't come across as ridiculous. 

 

Bottom Line: The code used in the OP document does not match what we are seeing. It matches perfectly with what the Mandela Effect believers by the millions are saying: That we clearly remember a cornucopia (not a basket or bowl) on the Fruit of the Loom logo.

Now I am not calling this document 'proof' of the Mandela Effect but 'compelling evidence'. For me to call it proof then all other possibilities like weird coding would have to be completely shut down. I don't know enough about coding to do that.

 

BONUS CONTENT

 

[rashore]

41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

(I'll respond to the many here as this is professionally toned)

The speculation is that at the time (1973) when the document I presented was created the creators of the document were seeing a cornucopia. Hence it makes perfect sense that they would include code:

050914 -  Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia (horn of plenty).

Now the skeptical argument here is that the logo in 1973 looked exactly like it does today in the document and the use of the code is just some quirk in a complicated system.

It's not necessarily coconuts. It's coding:

050925 -  Other fruits including coconuts.

It's coded as:

050903 -  Oranges, tangerines and the like; grapefruit.

The 'and the like' phrase can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. This was 1951 and more exotic fruits may have been a grab bag back then?? I don't know why that code was used but it doesn't come across as ridiculous. 

 

Bottom Line: The code used in the OP document does not match what we are seeing. It matches perfectly with what the Mandela Effect believers by the millions are saying: That we clearly remember a cornucopia (not a basket or bowl) on the Fruit of the Loom logo.

Now I am not calling this document 'proof' of the Mandela Effect but 'compelling evidence'. For me to call it proof then all other possibilities like weird coding would have to be completely shut down. I don't know enough about coding to do that.

 

BONUS CONTENT

 

So the coding works to show cornucopia, but it does not work to show other containers, and it's just coding when other examples of descriptions are noted. 

It's not necessarily coconuts. It's coding: 050925 -  Other fruits including coconuts.

So:

It's not necessarily cornucopia, it's coding. other containers of fruits, including cornucopia. 

Neither coconuts or cornucopia appear in the logo, though both have been mentioned in the coding. 

No one is saying the 1973  logo looked exactly like it does today except you saying skeptics are saying it. It was pointed out early on with a graphic that the logo has changed, and even since '73. Sure some people remember the logo with a cornucopia, I think you might be the only one implying that there are people who say no one is mis-remembering. Except maybe for the people who are thinking it's proof of alternate timelines instead of mis-remembering. Mostly everyone else seems to be OK with the notion that it's just a bunch of people mis-remembering. It happens sometimes, there are other examples of it. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

So the coding works to show cornucopia, but it does not work to show other containers, and it's just coding when other examples of descriptions are noted. 

It's not necessarily coconuts. It's coding: 050925 -  Other fruits including coconuts.

So:

It's not necessarily cornucopia, it's coding. other containers of fruits, including cornucopia. 

 

I absolutely agree with that bolded part that code 050925 isn't saying it's necessarily a cornucopia. But what I am saying is if that logo contained a cornucopia in 1973 (which is the claim of the ME believers) then that is the exact code we would expect to be applied here. Otherwise, the code does not seem to make much sense.

1 hour ago, rashore said:

 

No one is saying the 1973  logo looked exactly like it does today except you saying skeptics are saying it. It was pointed out early on with a graphic that the logo has changed, and even since '73. Sure some people remember the logo with a cornucopia, I think you might be the only one implying that there are people who say no one is mis-remembering. Except maybe for the people who are thinking it's proof of alternate timelines instead of mis-remembering. Mostly everyone else seems to be OK with the notion that it's just a bunch of people mis-remembering. It happens sometimes, there are other examples of it. 

OK, to clear up some confusion there are two very different types of changes we are talking about. There are the normal and recognized design changes that companies make with their logo. We all acknowledge the same changes and nobody really cares about those types of changes.

Another type of change (which is the type I was referring to) is a claim that reality has shifted and a prominent cornucopia was once a part of the logo although all current official sources and the underwear tags themselves do not now show the cornucopia now or ever in the past. This is the type of claim of change that is highly provocative to any thinking person.

 

Now for the big question: is it all wrong memory? Or is the Mandela Effect something that can not be satisfactorily explained within our straightforward understanding of reality (which is the argument I support).

The video I supplied is absolutely the best presentation for the Mandela Effect argument on the cornucopia that I have ever encountered. Unfortunately, it is 16 minutes long but the highlights are anchor memories, residue of jokes and humor that would never make sense if the cornucopia never existed and addresses all the common skeptical arguments.

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

Other trademarked items in the category that have no cornucopia or other implements of fruit and vegetable holders :

All of these are listed in the same category as the FotL :

"Trademarks in Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia"

It seems as if a basket, bowl, cornucopia, net, wheelbarrow or other container are not needed to receive this design code. There are dozens more, but I think these examples put to rest the assumption that the codes are meant to specify exactly what is in the logo.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Other trademarked items in the category that have no cornucopia or other implements of fruit and vegetable holders :

All of these are listed in the same category as the FotL :

"Trademarks in Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia"

It seems as if a basket, bowl, cornucopia, net, wheelbarrow or other container are not needed to receive this design code. There are dozens more, but I think these examples put to rest the assumption that the codes are meant to specify exactly what is in the logo.

I saw the original list you presented of code:

050914 -  Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia (horn of plenty).

It appeared 90+% of them clearly met the description and a few I didn't see where the description was met.

 

 

 

Now this would be a problem for my OP point if I was claiming proof which requires that any other possibilities are completely sealed off. What I'm saying is the coding makes exact sense if, as the Mandela Effect believers maintain, that there was a prominent cornucopia in 1973. 

 

This is still compelling evidence given the conglomeration of two things.

One, the assertion that there was once a cornucopia (Mandela Effect claim) combined with a coding that makes much more sense if that assertion were true.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

This Mandela effect is so dumb. It's just dumb.

Here is how to apply this dumb idea in the real world.

• Teacher I'm not wrong. My answer is correct in an alternate universe. I want full credit.
• No officer I was obeying the speed limit in an alternate universe.
• Sorry patient. I cut off the leg that was gangrene in the alternate universe.
• That stock made a fortune in an alternate universe.

Let's blame all mistakes and bad memory on the Mandela effect.

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This Mandela effect is so dumb. It's just dumb.

Here is how to apply this dumb idea in the real world.

• Teacher I'm not wrong. My answer is correct in an alternate universe. I want full credit.
• No officer I was obeying the speed limit in an alternate universe.
• Sorry patient. I cut off the leg that was gangrene in the alternate universe.
• That stock made a fortune in an alternate universe.

Let's blame all mistakes and bad memory on the Mandela effect.

Ya but.

 

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I saw the original list you presented of code:

050914 -  Baskets, bowls, and other containers of fruits, including cornucopia (horn of plenty).

It appeared 90+% of them clearly met the description and a few I didn't see where the description was met.

 

 

 

Now this would be a problem for my OP point if I was claiming proof which requires that any other possibilities are completely sealed off. What I'm saying is the coding makes exact sense if, as the Mandela Effect believers maintain, that there was a prominent cornucopia in 1973. 

 

This is still compelling evidence given the conglomeration of two things.

One, the assertion that there was once a cornucopia (Mandela Effect claim) combined with a coding that makes much more sense if that assertion were true.

 

 

No! The attached design code is not compelling, it's inconsequential.  Other antonyms to compelling include boring and weak.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Golden Duck
I switched from alt.universe and had to correct something.

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

No. The attached design code is not compelling, it's inconsequential.  Other antonyms to inconsequential include boring and weak.

Alone it wouldn't be that important but how about in conjunction with this:

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Ya but.

 

As I already stated the Mandela effect is dumb. It's just plain dumb.

It's an excuse for being wrong.

• Sorry I hit you with the car. You weren't there in the alternate universe.
• You are my child but I used birth control in the alternate universe.
• That's a bad paint spill. The lid must have been on securely in the alternate universe.

[papageorge1]

Just now, stereologist said:

As I already stated the Mandela effect is dumb. It's just plain dumb.

It's an excuse for being wrong.

• Sorry I hit you with the car. You weren't there in the alternate universe.
• You are my child but I used birth control in the alternate universe.
• That's a bad paint spill. The lid must have been on securely in the alternate universe.

Ignoring the evidence in that video is like

* I'd rather dismiss what I don't like and hide among my fellow scoffers so we can all circle whatever each other.

Or have you considered what was actually said and have a reply as to why you think there is nothing compelling there?

 

[stereologist]

The Mandela effect is a joke and it is believed only by the extremely foolish and gullible.

It's used to support the idea that they are not mistaken. But unfortunately they are just being foolishly stubborn about a trivial mistake.

The problem here is that they claim that all evidence of something has been changed, but this change somehow let the minds of the foolish and gullible intact while the rest of mankind has moved forward.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Ignoring the evidence in that video is like

* I'd rather dismiss what I don't like and hide among my fellow scoffers so we can all circle whatever each other.

Or have you considered what was actually said and have a reply as to why you think there is nothing compelling there?

 

There is no evidence in the video. It's a story for the extremely foolish and gullible to fall for and they did!

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

There is no evidence in the video. It's a story for the extremely foolish and gullible to fall for and they did!

Of course. 

[stereologist]

Here is the problem with memory. Some people think that memory is like a video tape. An event is remembered and correct. But that is not how memory works. Each time a person remembers something they do not remember the original event, but a reconstruction of the last time they remembered the event.

Let's say you see a bird fly by. Someone asks you about the bird. This is the first time you reconstruct that event. Later you are asked about the bird. This time you reconstruct the previous time you recalled the event, not the original event. That is why memories change.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Of course. 

There is no evidence in the video except that there never has been a cornucopia in the Fotl logo. There is no evidence to support this dumb idea of the Mandela effect.

You claimed there was evidence. Point it out. Go ahead and show us or admit you are wrong.