Mother Teresa – A Saint Once Again?

Mother Teresa of Calcutta
photo courtesy of India7 Network

Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910 – 1997) will be canonized as a saint on September 4th, 2016.

From comments and email, it’s clear that many Mandela Effect readers recall Mother Teresa (also remembered as Mother Theresa) being declared a saint prior to 2016.

  • Some recall her being named a saint in the 1990s.
  • Some are sure she was given sainthood while alive.
  • Some specifically reference Pope John Paul II as the pope who approved the canonization.

It’s important to note some landmark recognitions during Mother Teresa’s life and in the years since her death.

  • In 1962, she was given the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award for International Understanding.
  • In 1969, she was featured in the film, Something Beautiful for God.
  • In 1971, Paul VI awarded her the first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize.
  • In 1979, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • In 1980, she received India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna.
  • After her 1997 death, Pope John Paul II waived the usual five-year wait and began the beatification process.
  • In 2002, the Vatican recognized the first of two required miracles leading to Mother Teresa’s canonization.
  • In 2003, she was officially beatified.
  • In 2015, the Vatican recognized the second of the two required miracles.
  • According to the Vatican, her canonization will take place September 4th, 2016.

If you recall a reality in which she was named a saint (canonized) earlier than 2016, I hope you’ll share those memories in comments,* below.  I’m particularly interested in the context of your memories. That is, where you were, which spelling (Teresa or Theresa) you recall, whether you read about her sainthood in a book, heard about it in class, learned about it from a news report or online, and so on.

*On most articles at this site, comments remain open for 45 days.

DiCaprio Wins… Again?

DiCaprio - Mandela Effect
Oscar photo courtesy Davidlohr Bueso

Several people have said — in comments or via the Contact form — that they recall the Oscar ceremony where Leonardo DiCaprio won the Best Actor award. They recall a similar acceptance speech, as well. However, they recall it happening in the past.

(And no, they’re not confusing it with the BAFTA ceremony in February. Some of them mentioned the BAFTAs, specifically, as a ceremony they’d ruled out as a mix-up.)

I didn’t watch either 2016 ceremony, so I don’t have this memory and I’m not sure how widespread it is as a Mandela Effect.

If you have this memory from the Oscars, tell us when you remember DiCaprio winning, and anything else that makes it a credible, alternate memory matching an “earlier” 2016 Oscar Awards.

I’m especially wondering whether we’ll see a coincidence of memory dates. If so — and yes, this is speculation verging on the fantastical — it could identify a reality where time is tracking ahead of us by a specific amount.

Update: I’m receiving reports with clear memories of DiCaprio winning the Best Actor award for Titanic, including 1998 talk shows replaying his acceptance speech. If you have this memory, or recall DiCaprio winning for any other movie, share it in comments, below.

*As usual, “you’re just confused” comments won’t be approved. It’s assumed that anyone commenting here has already checked for similar, easily confused memories.

 

Different Strokes or Diff’rent Strokes?

Different StrokesThanks to Mike H. for bringing this to my attention: the change between the TV series “Different Strokes” and “Diff’rent Strokes.”

Until Mike mentioned it, I thought it was Different Strokes. However, I never watched the TV series, so I can’t state — with confidence — that the show name has changed.  Maybe I wasn’t paying close attention to the name when someone referenced it.

Also, I don’t follow Reddit (not for Mandela Effect topics, anyway), and I don’t usually look at “Mandela Effect” videos at YouTube.com. (I haven’t posted any videos about the Mandela Effect, and I kind of resent it when people want to connect the Mandela Effect phrase with “debunking” videos about Flat Earth Theory or anything else that takes us off-topic.)

So, I was rather pleased when Mike sent me the following video link. I don’t share all of timberwolves100’s memories or views, and — at this site — I avoid topics of religion and psy-ops or conspiracies. (See my Comments terms.)

(Nevertheless, since the “Lord’s Prayer” topic keeps coming up: everyone is correct about “debts” v. “trespasses.” Both are in the Bible, and it depends on which version you were raised with: Luke’s or Matthew’s. Most were raised with the “debts” version. The only way this topic enters the Mandela Effect is if you know you were raised with Luke’s version, but — in this reality — your family insists you were raised with Matthew’s, or vice versa. So, along with politics and conspiracies, let’s avoid religious topics here, including any Lord’s Prayer discussions.)

However much of timberwolves100’s video is a powerful overview of several topics we’ve discussed here in the past year. And — fast-forwarding to around the 11:30 mark — he sums it up nicely when he says you should find out what’s real for you.

It’s not necessarily media manipulation or psy-ops or anything like that. Don’t let anyone turn this into something that makes you uneasy, resentful, or downright anxious.

In my opinion, the Mandela Effect makes it possible for all of us to be correct in our memories, even when those memories seem to conflict with others’. So, it should put you more at ease, not increase your anxiety.

And, we’re not all traveling together in a pack. Just because you remember “Berenstein Bears” doesn’t mean you must also recall Looney Toons, or Mandela’s 20th century death, or any other alternate memory described as the Mandela Effect.

Trust your memories.

So, did you watch Diff’rent Strokes regularly enough to be sure it was Different Strokes?  I’m interested in how widespread this alternate memory is.

And really, I’m applauding timberwolves100 for making a good, common-sense video. Thanks!

Is Time Travel Part of the Mandela Effect?

Time travel. If it’s real — and many physicists insist that time travel has to be — does it explain some of the Mandela Effect?

Matt Smith quote about time travel

 

I’m reading The Yoga of Time Travel, by physicist Fred Alan Wolf.  In the Introduction of that book, he reminds us, “… a scientific basis for time travel was established more than a hundred years ago… Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski showed how it was theoretically possible in 1905 and 1908.”

In the next paragraph, Wolf said something that startled me. It confirms something we’ve talked about here at MandelaEffect.com.

“…let me tell you a secret: Some of the remarkable people you meet in life are time travelers. A few of these people know it; the others time travel without realizing it, but they do it just the same. These are the people who appear older than their years or, yes, often enough considerably younger.” [Emphasis added.]

So, how could this work with the Mandela Effect? As I see it, only for very specific, limited memories. Here’s an example.

Let’s say it’s December 1986 and you’re a teenager. You’re aware of turmoil in South Africa, and — in your reality — Nelson Mandela is taking part in another hunger strike where he’s imprisoned. (A side note for those who are looking at patterns related to 2s and 3s: He was prisoner 46664.)

One morning, you go through your bedroom door and — in another reality where it’s December 2013 (but you’re only half-awake as you shovel in a quick breakfast, and you don’t notice some odd changes) — your mother tells you the sad news that Nelson Mandela has died.

Since your mind is on an upcoming exam, you assume Mandela died from the hunger strike.

And then you go back to your bedroom, through the doorway* …and you’re back in 1986.

That day’s exam (at school) is a disaster. You know you did badly. You scramble to earn some extra credits before school vacation, because you really need a good grade in that class.

And, then it’s the holiday season. You forget all about Mandela’s death… until 2010 or so, when a friend says a few people recall Mandela dying in the late 20th century.

Suddenly, that memory — which you think is from 1986 — comes flooding back. You know Mandela died in 1986, because your mother said so, and she was never, ever wrong about that kind of thing.

Could that explain one kind of Mandela Effect?

Maybe. I think it would only work for specific, isolated memories. And, you’d need to be oblivious to the cues that you’re — at least briefly — in a different time.

But, if time travel is as commonplace as Fred Alan Wolf suggests, it’s something to consider.

———————————————————————–

*I’ve thrown in a doorway reference, because I think it’s possible that the “doorway effect” doesn’t just wipe some of our memories. In some (rare?) cases, it might be the portal to & from parallel realities.

Yes, I know that’s wild speculation, but — for me, anyway — it’s fun to wonder about this. And that’s why I’m sharing it with you.

— Illustration based on a graphic by Michel Meynsbrughen

Sinbad as a Genie – Shazaam

Sinbad - a genie
Photo courtesy Jerry Crawford.

This topic was first raised in August 2015, around the time that the Berenstein/Berenstain topic surged in popularity. So, it may have become lost in the Bears discussions.

David S. was the one who mentioned it. He said, “I’ve noticed weird examples of this for years. E.g. a movie with Sinbad where he plays a genie but the closest thing would be Kazaam with Shaq.”

David S. was correct, in a 2014 Q&A Interviewly.com session, here’s what Sinbad said:

Sinbad, there is a large rumor/conspiracy going around that you played a genie in a movie in the 90’s similar to Shaq in Kazaam. Can you confirm or deny the existence of this supposed film? Thanks for the AMA!

it was SHAQ SHAQ SHAQ
but we all look alike

Several people replied to David’s comment, and I’ve moved their comments to this post, focusing specifically on the Sinbad movie.

Also, DbD had asked whether or not this Sinbad/Genie movie appeared (and then vanished) around the same time as the Looney Tunes/Toons change. It’s a good question.

Since I saw the movie in search results — and images from the movie, as well — when David S. commented (August 2015), I’m not sure the timing matches. If anyone else has both memories and can give a time frame, that could be useful.

Sinbad looks like a genie. To me, it’s not just the missing movie that’s odd… it’s that, in this reality, no one cast him as a genie, ever. It’s hard to imagine Hollywood not making good use of obvious casting and easy marketing.

UPDATE: This seems to be the same alternate memory being discussed in December 2016 as “Shazaam.” http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2016/12/movie-doesn-t-exist-and-redditors-who-think-it-does

What’s Sliding – Your Consciousness, Memories, or Body?

Let’s pretend the Mandela Effect involves sliding from one reality to another. (The other leading explanation is that we’re each in a holodeck. The third explanation is that selected things — portions of our world, or selected chunks of time — are replaced, at least briefly, now & then.)

But if we’re each (individually or in groups) sliding,  what is sliding? Is it our entire body, complete with our consciousness and memories? Is it just our consciousness… or some parts of us but not others?

According to an International Business Times (UK) article, it appears that scientists in China are working on a related experiment: Teleportation of bacteria’s memories… (That link takes you to another website.)

Mandela Effect image
Courtesy of free images

In the past, some comments at this website have raised questions about which parts of us teleport (or “slide”) from one reality to another.

One such comment was in a thread started by Anthony. In a reply, Martin Williams said, “Maybe we don’t physically slide, but our existing consciousness travels to another me, and I only remember the change.. Could it be nothing happens to our other selves, just we jump from body to body over the dimensions. we jump into our own body in an alternate world.”

I’ve looked for past, public comments about physical changes. (Some people have reported, privately, scars moving.) Yes, they’re “just” anecdotes, but they may provide helpful insights.

Jelz talked about a vaccination scar appearing and disappearing. “As a kid, I received a smallpox vaccine scar on my right shoulder. It sometimes disappears when I try to show it to people who don’t have the same.”

Joseph Trevino described changing scars and moving birthmarks, “But recently I realized that my appendicitis scar was considerably fainter and I had a new, darker scar farther back, paralleling it. Also, I used to have three birthmarks (in the shape of a triangle) on my left collarbone- except now its on the right, and has a fourth, smaller mark under the top one. I chalked it up to reflection misinterpretation…”

(His comment is typical of the way most readers look first to logical explanations for such changes.)

Albo talked about a childhood incident involving deep scratches from a cat. However, though Albo has scars from lesser accidents, the wound from the cat seems to have left no scars, though it should have.

(That’s one of the most detailed reports among several talking about childhood accidents that should have left scars, but no evidence remains. And, in casual research, I’ve found nothing to indicate that children scar less easily than young adults.)

Alicia also describes a scar that vanished… along with her family’s memories of the dramatic events that led up to it. “On a personal side of things, my brother was a bit of a crap head, he got into some stuff he shouldn’t have and owed a dealer some money. I was confronted and ended up having a chunk sliced out of my arm in the scuffle. I still have the scar but last Christmas my family all acted shocked and concerned about a scar on my arm that is 7 years old. Not a single one remembering me having to go to the ER or…” (The comment is much longer, but this is the important part, for this discussion.)

ampster commented about serious scars that vanished for no reason , “Also in the summer of 1984 I fell off of a four wheeler and badly burned the back of both of my legs. It left me with rather bad scars on the back of both calves. Or so I thought, until one day in the mid-nineties when I mentioned something about it to my then-boyfriend who was confused, because I had no scars. For about ten years the scars disappeared and reappeared. I haven’t seen them since about 2006. (My parents and I always remember the accident, but apparently the severity switches?)”

Courtney recalls childhood surgery and wonders why there’s no scar now, “I clearly remember lying on an operating table and looking up to see doctors and nurses crowded around me. I believed, vehemently, that I had gotten surgery until I was ten and my mother explained to me that I had never had surgery. I even would have said I had a scar until that day, but there’s no scar.”

So, those six public comments out of 10,000, over five years. That’s not a huge number, but I also can’t claim this site provides an accurate survey of the general public, or even of our readers. And, I’ve never before asked about moving scars, or other unexplained physical marks that might suggest whether bodies slide with us, or not.

(Of course, some people will point out that scars can heal to the point of becoming invisible, or nearly so. Yes, I think we all understand that, and these people have considered the possibility of complete healing, without a trace. If the answer were that simple, they wouldn’t have left a comment here.)

If you have a scar that’s dramatically moved, appeared, or vanished (or some similar, unexplained physical change), I don’t need the entire (or gory) context, just the essential highlights. Share them in comments, below, or use the Contact form.

And, if you have ideas related to whether or not an individual’s consciousness and body “slide” together from one reality to another, share them in comments, below, too.

2019, CERN, and the Mandela Effect

winter-whirlpoolI’m musing about a few points. I’m interested in your thoughts about this, related to quantum research.

This was triggered by noone’s comment, linking to http://investmentwatchblog.com/scientists-admit-everything-they-know-about-physics-is-likely-wrong/

In that article, the author says, “And physicists only have two to three years before CERN shuts the LHC down for upgrades. If we haven’t found anything by then, Cliff said, it could signal the beginning of the end.” (As I read that, he means the end of this particular research effort.)

Let’s say that’s 2019. That fits the prediction of Mr. French: “… after 2019 this window closes and your pretty much stuck on the earth you vibrate with.”

It’s also a match for John D’s comment: “From what I know, 2015 and 2016 should be fairly low key with odd happenings and occurrences. However from 2017-2019 there will be quite a bit of noticeable glitches. It should again be fairly quiet in 2020. Beyond that my sources are a bit….strained I guess would be the right word.”

So, I’m wondering if much of the Mandela Effect — or our current, heightened awareness of it, at least — is related to CERN’s experiments. And, if the decisions we make right now (referring to the BI topic I linked to, yesterday) and through the end of 2018, determine which reality we’ll be “pretty much stuck on,” per Mr. French.

What do you think?

Quantum Studies in the News – 20 Jan 2016

newspaperThis month, several slightly geeky articles raise interesting points related to quantum studies. I think those points are worth considering, in light of the Mandela Effect.

The first appeared at ComputerWeekly. I’m intrigued by the idea of consciously making business choices in the context of MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation). Author Brian McKenna has taken quantum science in a surprising direction, with applications in the business world.

However, I’m not sure we’re actually “navigating” parallel universes via those decisions. (If you can explain that to me, please do.)

The following are some key excerpts from the article.

Honey, I split the universe — quantum physics and BI

By Brian McKenna on January 20, 2016

This a guest blogpost by James Richardson, business analytics strategist, Qlik

I find solace in the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of reality. In layman’s terms, the idea, first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett in 1957, means that ‘every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own “history” or “world”‘.  In other words, every time an event happens the universe splits. …

So how does this relate to business intelligence (BI)? …

Here’s my logic:

1.         People use BI as a driver for decisions.

2.         Decision events split universes.

3.         Therefore BI is a tool for switching between parallel universes.

To push the logic further, if the likely decision outcome is known, BI is a tool for consciously navigating parallel universes.

Read more at: http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/Data-Matters/2016/01/honey-i-split-the-universe—-quantum-physics-and-bi.html

Do you think that your decisions — daily, unconscious ones, or even deliberate choices — affect whether or not you experience the Mandela Effect? Do those of us with alternate memories have them because we’re decision-makers… and we tend to make choices that take us outside the lock-step conformity of society and some pop culture?

divider

Next, I’d like to talk about Chad Orzel’s explanation in a Forbes.com article, What The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics Really Means (Jan 5, 2016)

Early in the article, he says:

The explanation here is really that we’re constrained to only perceive a single reality at a time, and that perception is entangled with the outcome we’re seeing. [Emphasis added]

I like the emphasis on perception. It’s a little challenging to think we’re in all realities at one time, but aren’t consciously aware of it. However, I can’t rule that out as a possibility… or even a strong likelihood.

But then he says,

There’s a ‘world’ for every possible sequence of events, and these are completely separate and inaccessible to one another. [Emphasis added.]

I’m uneasy with the assumption that multiple realities are “inaccessible to one another,” unless he’s talking about a merge (or partial merge) between realities.

The Mandela Effect suggests that we can access different worlds or realities. (Of course, that’s only if you like the concept that we’re sliding between realities, as opposed to being in a holodeck or simulator.)

Read more of his article at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/01/05/what-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-physics-really-means/

divider

And then there’s the NPR article, How Real Is Reality?, posted January 5, 2016, by Adam Frank. I’m including this excerpt because it amuses me, and — of course — he’s at least partly correct. It’s why — at this point — no one can say exactly what’s causing the Mandela Effect.

“Quantum mechanics (or ‘quantum physics’) is the body of knowledge related to the nanoworld of molecules, atoms and the component parts. It’s the most powerful and accurate theory human beings have ever, ever, ever developed. The computer you’re reading these words on now wouldn’t be possible without quantum physics. But beneath all that power is a remarkable paradox that should never be forgotten: No one knows what quantum mechanics is talking about.” [Emphasis added.]

Read more of Mr. Frank’s article at: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/01/05/462010293/how-real-is-reality

If you have any thoughts about these articles, or you’ve found something interesting in the news — related to the Mandela Effect — I hope you’ll leave a comment, below.

Looney Tunes or Looney Toons

Looney Tunes
© Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Recently, after people had raised “Looney Toons” as an alternate memory, something odd happened: People report seeing “Looney Tunes” (the actual name) change to “Looney Toons,” at many websites, just for a day or so.

For example, on 28 Nov 2015, Emily said, “Hey guys…. Looney Tunes changed again. Just last week it was Looney Toons…” (“Last week” would have been Nov 15th – 22nd.)

Ordinarily, I’d dismiss that kind of report as a brief and localized issue — usually a print media error, or a typo in a digital TV show listing.

TinyToons
© Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Also, it doesn’t help that Tiny Toons exist, with similar graphics to their “grown-up” counterparts. So, that provides plenty of reason for people to be confused about the cartoon series’ names.

(However, several people — including Lebaneser Scrooge — mentioned Tiny Toons in their comments, so they were aware of the difference.)

In this case, Emily’s comment was one of many. She wasn’t confusing “Tiny Toons” and “Looney Tunes.”  In fact, reports were widespread and credible.

The alternate memory —  a reality in which it really is “Looney Toons” — was suggested in some 2014 emails. By March 2015, people were more outspoken about this. (See a comment on Comments 5 and another on Comments 6, with more on later pages.)

So, if the one-day switch was deliberate, the crossover wasn’t original; we’d already talked about it, here. And — if it was a genuine mistake (by one or more people) — one might question whether those who changed the name, temporarily, may have come from another reality.

But, that’s assuming the brief name change occurred in this reality. And frankly, it’s stacking one speculation atop another, reaching a precarious conclusion.

As I see it, we have several explanations, none of which can be proved. Here they are, in no particular order:

  1. Everyone who thought they saw “Looney Toons” was mistaken. (I don’t believe that, based on the volume of reports I received, but it must be mentioned if we’re considering every possibility.)
  2. Everyone who saw “Looney Toons,” online, had slid into a reality where that was the correct spelling. And then they slid back into this reality, without noticing any other alternate-reality cues.
  3. The veil (or whatever you want to call it) between realities thinned, briefly and only in certain locations, so the alternate reality’s “Looney Toons” name phased into view in (or from) this reality.
  4. The brief change — from Looney Tunes to Looney Toons — was deliberate, and either a prank or a social experiment. (The scale of that would be impressive, but not impossible.)

If you saw Looney Toons in November (or at any other time), share your thoughts in comments, below. If possible, include when you saw it, and where you were at the time (nearest city).

LOONEY TUNES and all related characters and elements are trademarks of, and copyright by, © Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Commenting Has Changed

mail-toomuchUpdate 18 Apr 2016:

Commenting at this site is now closed. That aspect of this website had become redundant, and — by phasing out comments — I’ll have more time for unique projects and fresh articles. Details: Major Site Changes.

Update 20 Jan 2016:

Most of the behind-the-scenes changes are complete. The commenting system has changed, too.

And, I’ve had time for two new articles. This is a victory!

Work continues, but changes will be minor, compared with what’s happened over the past month or so.

Update 18 Jan 2016:

This week, I’m completely revising and redesigning this website. At times, this will look messy.

I have re-opened comments, but — in keeping with site changes — they’re limited to new posts, and articles related to scientific discussions.

(If you have a new alternate memory to report, or you have some important additional information about an alternate memory, use the form at Comments page 15, formerly the “new alternate memories” page.)

See the Comments page for details of what’s ahead, and the Site News page for lesser updates.

Here’s some background:

Part of my original post, “Comments Closed Temporarily” :

Comments are temporarily closed at this site, and I’ve disabled the Contact form. Here’s why:

Early yesterday (Monday, 11 Jan 2016), all Hades broke loose in comments as well as in emails. The volume of comments were overwhelming.

A flood of people wanted to talk about about David Bowie’s death, and — whether or not they believed it was a “hoax death” —  relate it to the Mandela Effect. Many insisted that he’d died earlier, in a parallel reality, and that’s why the “hoax” gained such traction in this reality.

The sad fact is, Bowie’s January 2016 death was not a hoax. (By now, most people realize that, but — on Monday and early Tuesday — rumors were still rampant.)

Several sites explain why so many people were (reasonably) confused. (The Mirror article includes screenshots, starting with the BBC-related misstatement.)

Yesterday, I didn’t even try to weed through comments.  Between the impact of Bowie’s passing and the volume of work I was facing… well, I turned off the computer and took a “personal day.”

Especially during the past busy-busy year, I lost my focus.

More importantly, I lost touch with the sense of wonder that makes this kind of research fun.

So, for the next week, I’m closing all comments. I’ll post a new article when this is sorted.

In the meantime, if you’d like to discuss the Mandela Effect with others, I recommend Reddit. Clearly, they’re dealing with the same topic-specific moderation issues as I do, but they have more resources, and Reddit is a social site.

Also, I want to thank everyone who’s contributed anecdotes, insights, and support for this website. You are greatly appreciated.