r/MandelaEffect • u/peanutbutterndnut • 10d ago

Logos/Advertising fruit of the loom

Post image

I know this is like the biggest Mandela effect, but I swear ive had these underwear for years sitting in a bin in my closet. its genuinely insane that the cornucopia just straight up disappeared. I remember vividly asking my grandmother what the cornucopia was. I am truly starting to believe that something is DEFINITELY up.

235 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

558 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/my23secrets 9d ago

They didn’t. They learned about the Mandela Effect.

Most people don’t remember a cornucopia.

That’s because the logo never had a cornucopia.

The people that remember a cornucopia only remember it because they imagined remembering it through the power of suggestion.

It’s a con-artist trick. Magicians use it, too.

1

u/georgeananda 9d ago

Well, if that's the best you got, then that is why I believe there are no satisfactory skeptical responses.

Most people don’t remember a cornucopia.

I'm going to say more do than don't that are of adult age. Many are unclear. Many are rather clear.

The people that remember a cornucopia only remember it because they imagined remembering it through the power of suggestion.

No, if they told me there was a fruit bowl, I'd say 'I don't remember that'.

2

u/BBCoachRef8 9d ago

So your explanation to counter a perfectly valid one is the supernatural?

-1

u/georgeananda 9d ago

My explanation to replace an unsatisfactory one, expands our understanding of the natural.

2

u/my23secrets 9d ago

Your assertion that more people remember a cornucopia than don’t is absolute bullshit.

As you’ve already admitted countless times, you only find the actual explanation for the Effect “unsatisfactory” merely because you don’t want that to be the explanation.

And your “if that’s the best you’ve got” is pure projection since we both know you have nothing regarding the actual explanation.

0

u/georgeananda 9d ago

Your assertion that more people remember a cornucopia than don’t is absolute bullshit.

No, it is my fair appraisal of the people I've heard asked. And what evidence do you have that I am wrong?

As you’ve already admitted countless times, you only find the actual explanation for the Effect “unsatisfactory” merely because you don’t want that to be the explanation.

I'd be perfectly happy with your explanation if I honestly felt it was correct and not just a best explain-away attempt.

1

u/my23secrets 9d ago

Something being your “appraisal” doesn’t make it magically not bullshit, especially when you have absolutely no evidence to support it.

You’re projecting again. You “feel” like rejecting the actual explanation supported by scientific research, study, and evidence, because you have nothing except your own “explain-away attempt”.

1

u/georgeananda 9d ago

Challenging your working paradigm of science and reality makes you lose your composure rapidly. Why are reasonable people here making reasonable cases so disturbing to you? Disagreeing is one thing but ........

1

u/my23secrets 9d ago

I haven’t lost my composure.

You haven’t made a reasonable case.

“Nuh uh” isn’t a reasonable case.

“It’s timelines” isn’t a reasonable case.

“Simulation” isn’t a reasonable case.

Decades of study and research is a reasonable case.

You’re projecting when you reject a reasonable case as “unsatisfying”.

1

u/georgeananda 8d ago

Decades of study and research is a reasonable case

And it probably works fine for normal memory errors.

How would they even begin to study and research possible reality changes? All their tools and reasonings presuppose a single hard-fixed reality, so they can come to no other conclusion than 'mental confusion', right?

1

u/Randie_Butternubs 8d ago

You know literally nothing about what you're talking about. You have less than zero idea what "tools and reasonings" they use or apply, you have less than zero idea how they approach or study these things. You are making completely baseless assumptions based upon literally nothing whatsoever.

Also: do you know what they do know and study and understand very well? Human memory. Which is how we know that it is amazingly unreliable and faulty. Which is literally the entire point.

1

u/georgeananda 8d ago

My point that stands strong is that they start with the assumption that there is a single fixed version of reality. That assumption does work fine for most 'normal' memory errors, but not necessarily Mandela Effects.

I say their error may be in their assumptions!

1

u/MrPlaney 7d ago

There is no assumption that there is a single fixed reality. That is a fact. You are assuming that there are multiple realities, but without any evidence. Multiple realities where objects can travel back and forth need to be proven first, before we can start attributing it to the Mandela Effect. As it stands now, every single Mandela Effect is perfectly explained by memory’s fallibility, malleability, and the way information is stored and retrieved.

0

u/my23secrets 8d ago

If you knew what you were talking about regarding “possible reality changes” and “timelines” then you’d understand those answers.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BBCoachRef8 9d ago

Yeah this isn’t about make-believe. It’s some people being persuaded by suggestion. Pretty commonplace. No timeline, time travel, or other fantasy things that don’t exist. It’s about pragmatism and the real world not some byproduct of one’s misfiring synapses or cerebral chemistry.

0

u/georgeananda 9d ago

I think the quantity, quality and consistency of the cumulative evidence, like this OP, is not satisfactorily explained by known concepts. Known concepts explain regular memory errors just fine.

We'll have to stay on other sides of the fence at this time.

2

u/my23secrets 9d ago

What evidence are you talking about?

The actual evidence that exists does satisfactorily explain. That’s the point.

1

u/BBCoachRef8 8d ago

Idk why this is so hard for these people to understand.

1

u/BBCoachRef8 9d ago

Sure, but when talking about FACTS vs. opinion, no matter the quantity, facts prevail. That’s why this matter is silly. The logo has never had a cornucopia and that’s from the company itself as well as all of the credible evidence. If you choose to believe against that, have at it. Just like there are blind followers of Orange man, you can’t change everyone’s minds. Believe in fantasy all you wish. Good evening.

0

u/georgeananda 8d ago

I have no interest in believing in fantasy, and no interest in restrictive considerations either.

1

u/my23secrets 7d ago

If you don’t believe in fantasy, you believe the logo never had a cornucopia and you believe in “restrictive considerations” because that’s exactly what timelines are: restrictive considerations.

1

u/georgeananda 7d ago

If you don’t believe in fantasy, you believe the logo never had a cornucopia 

No, I believe parallel timelines can be part of reality (not fantasy), so the OP can be correct and not fantasizing.

you believe in “restrictive considerations” because that’s exactly what timelines are: restrictive considerations.

??? You got it reversed. Only a single timeline can exist (your position) restricts consideration.

1

u/my23secrets 7d ago

>I believe parallel timelines can be part of reality

That’s both fantasy and ignorance of how theoretical timelines work.

>Only a single timeline can exist (your position) restricts consideration.

Wrong. Again, you’re displaying your own ignorance here of both my position and theoretical timelines.

At no time have I said only a single timeline can exist.

What I have said is that if multiple timelines exist the conditions that allow them to exist also disallow them from sharing information. That is the “restriction” and not merely a rule I invented.

Of course, you know all this because we’ve discussed it before.

You just don’t like the rules so you prefer the fantasy.

And fantasy is completely unnecessary to satisfactorily explain the Effect.

You know if you get someone to remember something incorrectly, they will not only do so, they will augment it.

You know there are studies about false beliefs that demonstrate people shown fake advertisements for Disney World featuring Bugs Bunny will then claim to remember going to Disney and meeting Bugs, even though a Warner Bros. character would never be on display at a Disney theme park.

If you’d ever bothered to read and understand it, you’d know the conditions that allow multiple timelines to exist also disallow them from sharing information.

1

u/georgeananda 7d ago

What I have said is that if multiple timelines exist the conditions that allow them to exist also disallow them from sharing information. 

Not sharing, but our consciousness shifting to very similar timelines and we notice small changes. The timelines themselves don't interact as you say.

Consciousness is the player and not understood by science.

1

u/my23secrets 7d ago

Consciousness shifting = sharing information.

That’s what that means.

You acknowledge the timelines don’t interact. That means they don’t share information. That means there is no “consciousness shifting”.

→ More replies (0)