Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Mandela Effect Flip/Flops: My Flintstones/Flinstones Story Experienced Similarly by Another


papageorge1
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Proved me wrong??? Please present substance for those vacant claims or you’re wasting space here.

You've been proved wrong in countless threads.

You still have provided nothing at all to support the stupidity o the ME.

It's not up to us to prove you wrong even though we did. It is up to you to support your position which you have failed to even try at doing.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I use logic and reason.

Saying I don’t is immature and insulting.

You never use logic or reason as shown countless times.

No it is not immature and insulting to point out your failures. It is immature and insulting for you continue to avoid logic and reason. You are certainly capable of logic and reason yet you refuse to use logic and reason.

Buck up!

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Proved me wrong??? Please present substance for those vacant claims or you’re wasting space here.

Whats the point? You'll just rubbish them away, then come up with some nonsenical reason as to why its paranormal. It happens time and time again, you just don't like the proof cause it doesn't support your agenda, simple as that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

More residue on Ed McMahon;s Mandela Effect. Starts at 0:50

For those unfamiliar with this Mandela Effect, the current reality says Ed McMahon was never involved with Publisher's Clearing House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 11:31 PM, papageorge1 said:

More residue on Ed McMahon;s Mandela Effect. Starts at 0:50

For those unfamiliar with this Mandela Effect, the current reality says Ed McMahon was never involved with Publisher's Clearing House.

Looks like you can't help but reveal the ignorance of those attached to the ludicrous claim of the ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2022 at 8:33 PM, acute said:

"Flinstones" makes no sense, because "Flintstones" is "stones" after "Flint".

What exactly is a "Flin"? :huh:

 

'Flin' is Welsh for 'Angry'. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mattacaster said:

'Flin' is Welsh for 'Angry'. 

Oi dont bring us into this. :angry:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 11:31 PM, papageorge1 said:

More residue on Ed McMahon;s Mandela Effect. Starts at 0:50

For those unfamiliar with this Mandela Effect, the current reality says Ed McMahon was never involved with Publisher's Clearing House.

People just don’t remember the name of the company Ed McMahon was affiliated with that’s why they keep using Publisher’s Clearing House. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SecretSanta said:

People just don’t remember the name of the company Ed McMahon was affiliated with that’s why they keep using Publisher’s Clearing House. 

I think it's more the other way around. People only remember Publisher's Clearing House because of Ed McMahon.

The American Family Publisher's gig for Ed only came about because of his already notoriety with Publisher's Clearing House.

And the mystery grows deeper in that he never even went to people's front doors with huge checks for the second company. That is the most popular cultural meme in all of this. To me this is all mind blowing. 

 

Here's another and read the company name on the check.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think it's more the other way around. People only remember Publisher's Clearing House because of Ed McMahon.

The American Family Publisher's gig for Ed only came about because of his already notoriety with Publisher's Clearing House.

And the mystery grows deeper in that he never even went to people's front doors with huge checks for the second company. That is the most popular cultural meme in all of this. To me this is all mind blowing. 

It's so basic:

  • People don't have to 'remember' PCH because PCH is still around, I believe Marie Osmond is the current spokesperson. AFP went out of business it appears in 1998.
  • Ed seems to have been the spokesperson for AFP sweepstakes since its inception. I don't know where you're getting that this gig came about for Ed because of his notoriety with PCH, that doesn't make any sense.  Show me the timeline, in this reality or the ME reality, that you are hypothesizing here.  Ed probably got this AFP gig because Ed did a zillion commercials for lots of companies, hosted other TV shows, etc.
  • It appears that Ed (and maybe Dick Clark) did occasionally go to people's home to let them know they won, not sure about big checks.
  • People don't remember PCH only because of Ed, people remember it because of their commercials.  From wiki:

Did AFP have a Prize Patrol that was so prominently featured in various media?  No, so are you similarly confused why more people remember Coke and Pepsi but not RC Cola, because just like in this case the latter had far more advertising behind it?

Yes I know, people misremembering things that are absolutely ripe for misremembering is 'mind blowing' to you.  Who cares what people who are actually experts on memory think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's so basic:

  • People don't have to 'remember' PCH because PCH is still around, I believe Marie Osmond is the current spokesperson. AFP went out of business it appears in 1998.
  • Ed seems to have been the spokesperson for AFP sweepstakes since its inception. I don't know where you're getting that this gig came about for Ed because of his notoriety with PCH, that doesn't make any sense.  Show me the timeline, in this reality or the ME reality, that you are hypothesizing here.  Ed probably got this AFP gig because Ed did a zillion commercials for lots of companies, hosted other TV shows, etc.
  • It appears that Ed (and maybe Dick Clark) did occasionally go to people's home to let them know they won, not sure about big checks.
  • People don't remember PCH only because of Ed, people remember it because of their commercials.  From wiki:

Did AFP have a Prize Patrol that was so prominently featured in various media?  No, so are you similarly confused why more people remember Coke and Pepsi but not RC Cola, because just like in this case the latter had far more advertising behind it?

Yes I know, people misremembering things that are absolutely ripe for misremembering is 'mind blowing' to you.  Who cares what people who are actually experts on memory think...

So there currently exists no record of Ed McMahon standing on people's porches with giant checks from any publishing company. And then I earlier in the thread provided examples of Ed himself talking about going to doors with giant checks which was an iconic cultural image known almost universally by Americans of a certain age group.

I mean nothing in the current reality showing Ed on a porch with a giant sweepstakes winning check from a publishing company? In my experience essentially all people in my age range (people remembering American TV in the 1970's, 80's) are familiar with this iconic cultural image.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So there currently exists no record of Ed McMahon standing on people's porches with giant checks from any publishing company.

See the source image

What, does this not count because he's not on the porch?

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

And then I earlier in the thread provided examples of Ed himself talking about going to doors with giant checks which was an iconic cultural image known almost universally by Americans of a certain age group.

Like in the above?

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In my experience essentially all people in my age range (people remembering American TV in the 1970's, 80's) are familiar with this iconic cultural image.

False, or you don't know enough people.  The 'iconic cultural image' (odd name for 'marketing campaign'...) is commercials with PCH people knocking on people's door and them being surprised that they won, giant checks etc.  McMahon specifically doing this if of course not an 'iconic cultural image', because if it was really 'iconic' then it would conflict with your explanation that the ME doesn't work on big, iconic things because a reality change of that magnitude would be too much to handle for most people.  You did not watch more tv than I did in those decades either, before you try to go there.

As usual you also didn't engage at all with my post showing the big differences between PCH and AFP which for the non-fantastical explains well why people misremember this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

See the source image

What, does this not count because he's not on the porch?

 

For starters, yes, because he's not on a porch, And I've seen this photo a dozen times by now and this one photo cannot explain the iconic cultural memory we almost all of my generation have with Ed McMahon delivering giant checks to the door for Publisher's Clearing House. This looks like some minor generic gag photo based off his notoriety for delivering large check. That check has some generic 'The Big Win' company on it and has nothing to do with any publishing company. Where are all the more photos and videos to account for all the residue and argumentation I've supplied in this thread?

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

False, or you don't know enough people.  The 'iconic cultural image' (odd name for 'marketing campaign'...) is commercials with PCH people knocking on people's door and them being surprised that they won, giant checks etc.  McMahon specifically doing this if of course not an 'iconic cultural image', because if it was really 'iconic' then it would conflict with your explanation that the ME doesn't work on big, iconic things because a reality change of that magnitude would be too much to handle for most people.  You did not watch more tv than I did in those decades either, before you try to go there.

 

Well, I really find you an odd exception to the rule if this iconic cultural image is nowhere in your TV memory growing up. With it being a gag on sitcoms and the like, you must have at least been aware of the cultural misremembering?? Or did that humor go over your head?

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

As usual you also didn't engage at all with my post showing the big differences between PCH and AFP which for the non-fantastical explains well why people misremember this.

I mean what big difference are you talking about? I said AFP was a minor gig later on for Ed that played on his established notoriety in publishing sweepstakes. Again, can anyone show us in this reality any Ed McMahon big sized checks from any publishing company?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is about people pretending they are not wrong.

But they are wrong. The excuse they make is so sad. It makes them look like whiny cry baby children.

The likelihood is they are feeble minded at best.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 3:26 PM, papageorge1 said:

I said AFP was a minor gig later on for Ed that played on his established notoriety in publishing sweepstakes.

What do you mean 'later' and 'established notoriety', I don't understand your timeline for Ed?  This is from 1983:

Note also the Ed says, "I personally will be awarding this giant prize". 

Question for you: since you are relying on your extensive and supposedly accurate memory of tv commercials from decades ago, do you remember this commercial at all?  It looks familiar to me, but I'm assuming that in your reality maybe this doesn't exist since you think he worked for PCH?  Unless you think he worked for both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 3:26 PM, papageorge1 said:

Where are all the more photos and videos to account for all the residue and argumentation I've supplied in this thread?

(I've separated this part out into its own post as you have a habit of being selective as to what you reply to if I include more than one topic in the same post)

What argumentation, where?  There is the claim, and then usually there is argumentation to support the truth of the claim.  Your claim(s) are essentially that you believe certain Mandela effects are not satisfactorily explained as false memories.  What is your support for this claim?  Not argumentation that I've been able to spot, it'd be great to see some argumentation from you.  Instead the only support I've seen you provide for your claim is that in your best judgment the claim is true.  That is not argumentation it's essentially just restating the claim, you may as well be appealing to faith; "I think MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories" is the same statement as "in my best judgment MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories".  The benefit of real argumentation especially if it's based on reason is that it can be examined and understood by other people, unlike your mere 'judgment' which is irrelevant unless you can provide some argumentation why your judgment is to be trusted.

Do you agree with my definitions above, do you disagree with what 'argumentation' is?  Assuming you don't I'm happy to stand corrected, please provide 'argumentation' for any of your ME points, I've brought up the meaninglessness of your appeal to 'judgment' countless times so it'd be great to see something different from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What do you mean 'later' and 'established notoriety', I don't understand your timeline for Ed?  This is from 1983:

 

I would say 70's and early 80's was the heyday of Ed McMahon and PCH commercials.

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Note also the Ed says, "I personally will be awarding this giant prize". 

 

Well then where is the evidence of Ed doing such a thing with a giant check at the door for any publishing company? I would assume a prize from AFP was awarded but it wasn't done with the fanfare of Ed delivering a giant check on popular TV commercials to the door. I would add that it seems likely to me that the word 'giant' in that comment was added as a play on his popular notoriety for delivering giant sized checks.

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Question for you: since you are relying on your extensive and supposedly accurate memory of tv commercials from decades ago, do you remember this commercial at all?  It looks familiar to me, but I'm assuming that in your reality maybe this doesn't exist since you think he worked for PCH?  Unless you think he worked for both?

It seems vaguely familiar to me and its existence squares fine with my understanding of the past as far as Ed and AFP is concerned. I think he worked for both. His notoriety came from delivering giant checks to the door for PCH and AFP was a small after-gig because of his established notoriety in publishing sweepstakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when some poster such as papageorge1 posts this rubbish: "Where are all the more photos and videos to account for all the residue and argumentation I've supplied in this thread?"

All papageorge1 has posted if and I state emphatically IF they posted anything but evidence they are truly wrong.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we see all that papageorge1 has done is prove time after time that their memory is pitiful.

Most people would admit that their memories are human, i.e. prone to errors. But the few likepapageorge1 want to pretend that their memories are inhuman, i.e. not prone to error.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

(I've separated this part out into its own post as you have a habit of being selective as to what you reply to if I include more than one topic in the same post)

What argumentation, where?  There is the claim, and then usually there is argumentation to support the truth of the claim.  Your claim(s) are essentially that you believe certain Mandela effects are not satisfactorily explained as false memories.  What is your support for this claim?  Not argumentation that I've been able to spot, it'd be great to see some argumentation from you.  Instead the only support I've seen you provide for your claim is that in your best judgment the claim is true. 

 

A preponderance of memories and residue is the argumentation for the Mandela Effects.

31 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  That is not argumentation it's essentially just restating the claim, you may as well be appealing to faith; "I think MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories" is the same statement as "in my best judgment MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories". 

That is indeed exactly all I am saying: "in my best judgment MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories". If I was claiming proof, I would be held to different standards of argumentation.

34 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The benefit of real argumentation especially if it's based on reason is that it can be examined and understood by other people, unlike your mere 'judgment' which is irrelevant unless you can provide some argumentation why your judgment is to be trusted.

Do you agree with my definitions above, do you disagree with what 'argumentation' is?  Assuming you don't I'm happy to stand corrected, please provide 'argumentation' for any of your ME points, I've brought up the meaninglessness of your appeal to 'judgment' countless times so it'd be great to see something different from you.

Once again I say: A preponderance of memories and residue is the argumentation for the Mandela Effect.

It is as relevant as we each chose to make it. For me personally, this has become enough for me to say that beyond reasonable doubt our straightforward understanding of reality does not always hold. And I do realize how dramatic that statement is. Many of us have genuinely experienced things that are not part of our current consensus reality. Quite a statement.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

A preponderance of memories and residue is the argumentation for the Mandela Effects.

That is indeed exactly all I am saying: "in my best judgment MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories". If I was claiming proof, I would be held to different standards of argumentation.

Once again I say: A preponderance of memories and residue is the argumentation for the Mandela Effect.

It is as relevant as we each chose to make it. For me personally, this has become enough for me to say that beyond reasonable doubt our straightforward understanding of reality does not always hold. And I do realize how dramatic that statement is. Many of us have genuinely experienced things that are not part of our current consensus reality. Quite a statement.

There is no preponderance of evidence. That is a lie you promote. 

All of ME is people like papageorge1 pretending that their failures are not failures.

All this shows is what stupidity is about - pretending not to be stupid. That is just sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well then where is the evidence of Ed doing such a thing with a giant check at the door for any publishing company?

Where are you getting this requirement of 'at the door' and 'on the porch'?  I realize that is part of the ME, because PCH did that with their Prize Patrol and people are merging multiple closely related memories together and misremembering that it was Ed McMahon.  We are explaining why this would be easily confused. 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I would assume a prize from AFP was awarded but it wasn't done with the fanfare of Ed delivering a giant check on popular TV commercials to the door.

Exactly, no one even remembers AFP because they were totally outmarketed by PCH, which explains the false memory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

A preponderance of memories and residue is the argumentation for the Mandela Effects.

That's a little vague, those are just facts or evidence.  What about these memories/residue indicates a false memory is not a good explanation?  Here:

  • Claim: MEs can be explained as false memories.
  • Argument:  MEs fit many of the exact conditions under which a false memory would be more likely to occur.
  • Evidence: Psychology

Are you saying that just the number of these memories is a good reason to doubt false memories?  What is the evidence for that argument?

And define 'residue', an obviously very biased, begging-the-question term.  All 'residue' looks like to me is a video of someone misremembering; that there is misremembering going on is not in question so having a video adds nothing.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

That is indeed exactly all I am saying: "in my best judgment MEs are not reasonably explained as false memories".

That is not all you are saying, you are also referring to having argumentation, to the extent that you are actually acting like there should be videos or something counter to this 'argumentation'.  Whether you have an argument is something that can be discussed which is why I replied, but as usual you seem to be avoiding that subject with your one vague sentence of your 'argumentation'.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

For me personally, this has become enough for me to say that beyond reasonable doubt our straightforward understanding of reality does not always hold. And I do realize how dramatic that statement is.

Of course that's how it seems to you, you are pretty incurious about looking into any kind of counter-arguments and the support for them.  Lots of fellow religious people think they're making dramatic statements too, billions of them...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where are you getting this requirement of 'at the door' and 'on the porch'? 

Because that is the most memorable part of the iconic image that is remembered by me and so many others. And that seems the most challenging issue for the skeptics. To skip or to call 'misremembering' on that part is just a necessary step for a skeptic to complete an explain-away. So that's the step they take.

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Exactly, no one even remembers AFP because they were totally outmarketed by PCH, which explains the false memory.

Not seeing how that would at all explain why we have this iconic memory of Ed McMahon delivering giant checks to the door for a publishing company's sweepstakes. It might explain why we confused the two similar companies, but I am not even buying that part.

 

 

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.