Comments 4

All 285 comments from Memories Page 4 are in this book. It’s FREE to read in Kindle Unlimited.

This is the fourth general comment page, related to the Memories page and the Mandela Effect. Threads on this page were started 8 April 2015, or slightly later.

Only the first comments are shown, to reduce server load. <– Please read that page to understand why. (Total comments at this website = >10,600.)

Are you reading through all the comments pages in the Memories series? These are the links, in date order: 123– 4 – 5678910 – 1112131415

To read the entire 285 comments that were on this page, read The Mandela Effect – Major Memories, Book 4. It’s FREE to read in Kindle Unlimited.

59 thoughts on “Comments 4”

  1. I have a few odd memories with the map, too. Up until about 4th grade, I was positive North and South Korea were an island and Japan was part of the mainland, but now I’m not so sure. I can also remember (more recently) finding out that Japan was an island, and then finding out that it was many islands. However, I cannot recall a single memory of the Koreas attached to another piece of land and can actually remember exactly how I thought they were. I also remember North and South Korea getting back together, but that obviously hasn’t happened.
    On a smaller matter, I remember at school some people asking to see a movie trailer in class but the teacher denying but I can remember exactly what the trailer was before seeing the trailer on my own over a month later and it being nearly exactly the same, except with a few changes. However, it had some of the exact same lines in it and when I read the book for the first time, I felt as if I was remembering. Could this be a “Mandela Effect”?

    1. I forgot to add that I sometimes have moments when I suddenly remember whatever just happened happening before and can recall whatever happens next, too. It ranges from watching TV, scrolling through Tumblr, or even conversations. Whenever I try to tell people about it, they mark it off as deja vu and I would agree with that except for the fact that I’ve had deja vu and it is entirely different. Only one of my friends has said that it happens to her, too.

      1. I know this comment is old, but I have never met anyone that has had these experiences happen to them also. So weird. This happens to me all the time.

    2. I have looked at maps of North and South Korea at night to see the differences in the light patterns in the past few years. North and South Korea were NOT attached to any other land mass – they were an island. It was necessary for the map makers to put the outline around North Korea so it was easy to see the borders. There were no lights evident above North Korea on the maps I remember.

  2. I saw someone above mention “Interview With A Vampire” now being “Interview With The Vampire”, for me it was always Interview With A Vampire even up until fairly recently. It also seems as though the release date has changed to a full 2 years later. I remember that movie being released in 1992…not late 94 close to 95….Also I’ve also remembered Barbara (Barbra) Streisand’s name as Barbara. The Barbra spelling is a totally new for me period.

      1. I remember “Interview with A Vampire” and I only heard of that book’s existence a few years ago.

    1. I remember seeing “Interview With THE Vampire” mentioned on some website, and being puzzled as to why they changed the name. I never read it but am very familiar with the title due to its immense popularity. I’m betting that not a few fans are perplexed, as well.

      1. The french title is “entretien avec un vampire” and not “entretien avec le vampire”
        “un” means “a”.
        “le” means “the”.
        THE or LE don’t make any sense. It would make sense only if it was about a unique vampire.

        1. Well… yes, and no. In English, some people use “the” to indicate one that’s atypical, even among many. No adjective is required (or possible?), to denote what makes the whatever-it-is different. (Loosely, the concept might be similar to “je ne sais quoi,” where no adjective seems correct.)

          For example, see stories about Sherlock Holmes, who referred to Irene Adler as “the woman.”

  3. He Fiona… everyone. Absolutely fascinating discussions here Just a couple of bits of food for thought here. I am generally leaning towards JM’s beautiful & thought provoking explanation but there may well be more to some of the above experiences than just this timestream slippages phenomena (however much I believe that may well be the genuine case for some of these anomalies).
    Firstly I’d like to address a ‘double death’ that has been given infrequent mention here; that of Osama Bin Laden’s initial demise. In preparation of the 2008 presidential election, Benazir Bhutto (11th Prime Minister of Pakistan); in an interview with David Frost on Al Jazeera (2 November 2007), casually stated that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is one of the men convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl. Many other political figures have claimed earlier Bin Laden deaths. Trouble is, less than 2 months later she was assassinated. I’m not so sure these events are entirely unrelated.
    Then again, what interests me is that there seems to be a tendency for such phenomena to occur surrounding spiritual / holy or strongly politically motivated figures. Maybe not the case for some, but it reminds me of the resurrection. Yup, Yeshua Bah Yosef himself, folks remember him dying, they the guy came back. Are we experiencing a deeply profound insight into the nature of powerful spiritual beings of light opening us to a hitherto now misunderstood phenomena? The volume of people posting here having a near death experience, only to start these new & overwhelming experiences? From the research I have done on shamans & mystic people worldwide it showed a vast majority of them were unwilling to become magic folks & were usually very sickly children; most have had NDE’s too; which was often the catalyst into their awakening.

    As an aside & in the spirit of personal experience, I would like to relay you one of my own; although if anyone could show me evidence of it actually happening & being recorded in this timeline please let me know; it would be gratefully received. A good 13 or so years back I remember watching a documentary on either National Geographic or Discovery Channel about the US Government’s official line with regards to what actually happened at Roswell, 1947 (after the standard 50 years of silence dealio). Although the current explanation is Project Mogul: microphones flown on high altitude balloons, whose primary purpose was long-distance detection of sound waves generated by Soviet atomic bomb tests, this documentary (which was clearly aimed to debunk the UFO aliens claims) claimed that the bodies recovered there had big heads because there was some door, or something that had crushed the heads of the people on board after the crash & that was why they were so inflamed & large (I know, right?). But the Mogul balloons were unmanned, surely….. I really watched it; thought it was incredibly contrived at the time, but since then, everyone I’ve spoken to about it have never heard of this official account & I’ve never found anything of it online either. Please, if anyone has seen this, let me know, otherwise… I’m slipping into another stream, aren’t I? I remember this documentary…. I watched it. I think, like with some other TV events mentioned here, that possibly they may have released that version of events, realised it was so contrived & pathetic, pulled it & came up with a better, more credible cover-up.

    And as for geographical anomalies; didn’t I read somewhere that in the not so distant past, they made countries out to look smaller / larger than they were. The examples I heard were Africa is absolutely massive & made to appear much smaller on maps & North America is made to appear larger than it actually is. I’m sure that’s a researchable thing that has come to be discovered as true. Or is this yet another timestream discombobulation?

    1. I attended a workshop by Food for the Hungry and they mentioned the world map in their presentation. A true scale representation of the continents *would* show Africa as massive and the northern hemisphere continents as a lot smaller. One image showed how Africa can fit all of the U.S., China and other countries inside itself.

  4. http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/the-candidate-stars-will-ferrell-and-zak-galifianakis-read-50-shades-of-grey-video-165236006-237751711.html

    >August 07,2012

    The words Campaign and Candidate go hand in hand – there are an unfathomable, uncountable amount of instances where these words were both used in the same sentence, let alone in the same conversation (e.g. a movie trailer).

    If timelines were switched – chances are, this article would no longer be read as “The Candidate stars Will…..”, but instead “The Campaign stars….”

    You suggest that in the new timeline – all instances of “Candidate” were switched to “Campaign” – yet not in this single headline? Look at the video in the article – it says “The Campaign” in the background of the video, even.

    It was just a very, very common mix-up of words. These details (and most of the “changed” details mentioned on this website) are very minute.

    Dates, deaths, etc. being mis-remembered can be linked to, well… say something of importance happening to, say, Nelson Mandela (major lawsuit) at the same time the media is reporting about the death of a major celebrity of some sort, or some political figure of the same race (lets say Jim Jackson), etc etc. Years later, it’s very likely that your memory of it faded somewhat, and maybe you mixed a few things up.
    Say the media reports, for weeks, at the same time that : Jim Jackson died on April 1st 1991, and Nelson Mandela faces largest lawsuit in state’s history. Both get major media coverage, Jim Jackson a bit less than Mandela – due to “importance”.
    10 years later, after only remembering the most important keywords from that media-month (Nelson Mandela & Death), you’re memory, 15 – 20 years later may be skewed to;
    “Nelson Mandela Died in April 1991 and Something happened to James Jacko or something around that time” – chances are you won’t even remember the name of the unimportant, and apply the important, memorable detail (death) to the important, memorable man (Mandela).

    Dates: The date of a reported event isn’t important enough to remember (unless it’s catchy and constantly shoved down your throat [e.g. 9/11) – but the event is important enough to remember. X event may happen in April 2001, and be reported heavily by the media for a few weeks and then dropped. There may not be much other reports or news about the event until there is enough information to keep the story moving. Say there isn’t any new news-worthy information until August of that year – and it’s huge news. e.g. “Residents of New York flooding to neighboring states to avoid X” or possibly even a government scandal related to the event. Possibly something covered more than the event was originally covered, although the followup story (people flooding out/government scandal) is less important to us, it’s covered much, much more (this happens in media so much that its insane. they also focus on mundane and irrelevant details – pay attention).

    10 years later, you may remember the event “X” (important event) and mistake the happening of the event to be August (mass media coverage month) rather than April (actual event date).

    Get where i’m going? We naturally focus on major details rather than small details. This is completely natural, we do it every single day. ESPECIALLY with things like news, where “important” events are reported one after another.

    1. KingKen,

      I see where you’re going with this, and it seems like another effort to explain these memories in terms of, “Oh, you just misremembered.” Generally, I don’t approve comments like this, because they can trivialize what we’re talking about. However, you raised a few points that I may not have addressed fully enough.

      Most of us have been down the “must have misremembered” path, multiple times, looking for logical explanations for what we remember. Many of us don’t find them. This isn’t that simple.

      I don’t just remember that Nelson Mandela died. I remember his widow’s speech, the parades and demonstrations, the discussions about how his death might impact organized efforts related to apartheid, and so on. I recall this going on for days that added up to weeks, though the discussions continued — off and on — for months.

      By contrast, I’d be willing to accept that I’d misremembered, say, the year the Red Sox won the World Series or when it happened in relation to other things in my life. I don’t follow sports closely.

      However, as a long-time civil rights activist with very clear and detailed memories of Mandela’s previous death and the lengthy media coverage that followed… no. That’s not something I’d misremember or confuse with the death of someone else.

      I do grok your ideas about time references as opposed to exact dates. Many people remember things that way. In my opinion, the fact that I can’t tell you the exact date of Mandela’s previous death doesn’t discount the memory.

      Regarding the Candidate/Campaign topic, I think you’re assuming a cohesive shift. That is, if I remember Mandela’s death before 2013, I must also remember the title of the movie differently. Or perhaps this website would have different content due to a uniform shift from one timestream to another, whether it (in part or total) “slid” with me or not.

      I don’t think it works that way. I won’t pretend I understand how this works, but I don’t think we’re sliding from one reality to another in uniform, coordinated, lockstep ways. I don’t think we all board the same inter-time train at the same time, and then step off that train as a collective.

      All in all, I think some visitors to this site assume that we accept our memories at face value. Maybe you don’t realize that many (most?) of us are bright and educated. Many of us (including me) first assumed our memories were faulty. We went looking for the “ah-HA!” answers that might explain (if only to ourselves) how we misremembered. We didn’t find them, even with spurts of research covering several years.

      Until I heard, in the Dragon*Con “green room”, an out-of-the-blue reference to Nelson Mandela’s previous death, I still thought I’d misremembered. I thought that I’d find an answer to those weird memories, if I just kept looking.

      Then, several others in the green room described their memories of Mandela’s death… and most (not all) of them matched mine. Participants in that discussion — which covered many hours and multiple participants as we flowed in and out of that break room, between our scheduled presentations and panels — included some with backgrounds (and advanced degrees) in related sciences.

      The explanations that emerged were startling. The pieces started to fall into place.

      Some time after that, I gathered the courage to launch this website, thinking the Mandela memories were the only anomalous ones.

      Since then, the topic has expanded in many directions. To me, this is fascinating.

      However, in many (perhaps most) cases, these aren’t reports by people who misremembered. We’ve already looked at news reports from when we thought Mandela died, to see what we might have superimposed. We’ve examined every likely source of confusion. (The same goes for the Billy Graham funeral, the Berenstain/Berenstein Bears name, the locations of several island nations, and so on.)

      And, telling us to “pay attention” to the smokescreens and diversions provided by the news media… I think most of my readers have become very cautious about what they infer from news reports. We’ve read Cialdini, et al, and know how mind control works. We have Snopes bookmarked on our browser toolbars, and a few other “fact” resources, as well.

      I appreciate the many people who want to help us by correcting our mix-ups, suggesting why we might have misremembered, and pointing out the illogics of what we are sure we remember.

      That doesn’t change the memories, and it doesn’t change my belief that our memories are generally correct. I believe most of our “misfit” memories are from different timestreams than the one we’re in at the moment. And, in a way, that’s tremendously liberating. I can heartily disagree with you about things we remember differently… and we can both be right.

      I’m confident that science will have an answer to this, if it doesn’t already exist. I’m happy to wait for that, while assuring my readers that many of their odd memories are normal. They’re not crazy, stupid, deluded, or confused about their memories. And, most importantly, they’re not alone.

      Sincerely,
      Fiona Broome

      1. (feel no pressure to publish, just a response to you directly).

        I meant no discredit or offense with my post – I was merely in a thread on a certain website about the Berenstein/Berenstain confusion and ended up here. Also, me referencing Mandela and others references in my previous posts were just examples -I vaguely remembered Mandela dying when I was much younger – but didn’t remember until I actually heard of the death again in 2013. My posts were trying to make sense of how this could be explainable.

        I, too, remember pronouncing Berenstain – “Burn-steen” my entire life. The books were a big part of my childhood; my grandmother read them to me until I was much too old, and i enjoyed every second of it. I was quite surprised when I saw the thread and the claim – it’s a hard thing to swallow. My first thought, naturally, was “i’m misremembering” – that wasn’t enough, I tried to make some sense of it in my post here.

        When did this Berenstein vs Berenstain debate begin? I can remember an event less than 5 years ago – I was referencing them in a text message to a friend, and do remember looking up the correct spelling on my phone – I remember it clearly being STEIN. However, part of me feels that i’m buying into the “crazy”, and the other part of me trusts that i’m not mis-remembering.

        Maybe I was trying to discredit the stories on here- but merely to make myself feel a little more sane. My apologies. I have thoroughly enjoyed your response and your website – it has been eye-opening, confusing, and a bit scary. I’m still not sure what to believe, however.

        1. KingKen, thanks for your reply. Honestly, I wasn’t offended. A little frustrated, maybe, because I see so many people who want us to be misguided, illiterate, uninformed, delusional, or downright stupid. However, I fully understand that as a reasonable, comfortable response.

          Generally, I don’t approve those kinds of comments. You said enough things in good ways to contribute to the conversation. I’m fine with questions and skepticism, as long as something in the mix is fresh, interesting, or even slightly different.

          Honestly, most people who arrive here as skeptics (or just curious) find something that makes them uncomfortable. (I have lots of private apologies from people, who say something like, “Maybe I was kind of sarcastic in the comment you didn’t approve, but I kept reading at the site and found _____ that matches my memories 100%… so now I’m rethinking this, big time.” Those are very satisfying, because one of my goals is to provide enough information that people pause and give this a second look.)

          Like you, I don’t know what to believe. Oh, I believe what most people say they remember. (It helps that I get to see lots of “don’t publish this, but…” comments so I know the “me, too” factor doesn’t explain this.) I also know what I remember, and what a relief it was when I didn’t have to wrap my brain around Mandela’s earlier death as a “misremembered” issue.

          I’m most comfortable relying on the “sliding” model, but that may not be the best or only explanation. Maybe all of this is a holodeck and each of us have slightly different memory-type programs that contribute to who we are and what we do in the “now” of this.

          I’m always interested in intelligent dialogue here, even if I don’t agree. I’m mindful of fragile people who’ve stumbled onto this and need lots of assurances that it’s not just misremembering or whatever. Other than that, as long as everyone’s respectful (more or less), I’m happy.

          I have no real explanations. I don’t think anyone does. However, it’s comforting and fascinating (to me, anyway) to find so many people with identical or nearly-identical memories. That’s especially true when they start with the Mandela issue (whether or not they share the earlier funeral memories), and stumble onto a memory they didn’t even realize was incongruous with the current reality/timestream.

          Cool stuff.

          Cheerfully,
          Fiona

  5. So I’ll admit, this has me stumped. I recall Patrick Swayze being alive as recently as a month ago without problem. I remember some 90s movies with different endings, but that could just be that it has been so long since I saw them. I do distinctly recall TANK boy being crushed, and the social studies class in which we watched it – it cut to interviews with witnesses right as he was starting to be crushed. I also recall Fonzie’s actor being seriously injured and written off of Happy Days.
    Most of these I noticed a while back – I used to keep a little list of these things. At the time, I had no knowledge of a “mandela affect,” but intended to use it to prove to people I was right if/when I ever learned the truth (which I assumed was in my favor). Most of these could be written off as simple mis-hearing or confusion, but the fonzie this and the TANK boy were both major recollections for me. Both affected me to some degree, as I used to imitate Fonzie and kept the guy being run over in my mind as a strong example of selflessness.

  6. Hi fiona, Science per se doesn’t claim to be holier than all,it’s only some scientists and some scientific establishments that have the airs and a propensity for premature snubbing to such obvious phenomena as ME.Being crazy stupid deluded or confused is not such a tragedy either,maladjustment malady is the real disease that is precursor to serious conditions like psychosis and schizophrenia.I for one can’t imagine what is so shocking to be a ME adherent, after all millions of people all over follow weird cults some of which are dowright against humanity.A need to justify ME is not necessary,take it or leave it should be the spirit, and i am sure that the web is designed to promote such topics for it gives a sense of relief when anomalies are found to be shared,it might even prevent a nervous breakdown.

    1. Good one, John! I thought that was just me and my quirky mix of American, British, and Irish colloquialisms. I figured it was “dilemna” in England and “dilemma” in the U.S., kind of like “dialogue” and “dialog,” and Oxford commas and… well, you get the idea.

      Also, if it had never been “dilemna,” why didn’t I consistently fail that word in spelling, English, journalism, and creative writing classes, back when I always spelled it (and pronounced it) dilemna?

      (Per Wikipedia: “The errant spelling dilemna is often seen in common usage. It appears to have been taught in many areas of the United States and all over the world, including (but not limited to) France, England, Jamaica and Australia. There is no prima facie reason for this substitution error and there is no erroneous parallel to be found with the word lemma, from which dilemma derives.”)

      It never once crossed my mind that it had never been dilemna. That makes no sense to me. Is the error that widespread…? (Rhetorical question, now that I see the poll results at that webpage plus what Wikipedia says.) But, but… where did that come from?

      Very cool! I love hearing about these kinds of things!

      Cheerfully,
      Fiona

      1. It seems to be the same way with DEFINITELY vs DEFINATELY .I was taught to spell it definately and I have always spelled it definately, until several years ago spell check would correct me and I couldn’t figure out why. Apparently alot of people use the ‘nately’ spelling, but is generally explained away as being one of the most misspelled words in the English language due to pronunciation.

          1. Donnie,

            Hmm… I can sort of see confusion with words like “delicately” and “deliberately,” etc. (Ref: http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/ately/) Applying the rule of “immediate” and “immediately” is more of a stretch for me.

            I also understand that the adverb form of “finite” is “finitely.” (Per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finitely )

            The weird thing is, “definitely” is practically an exception. (Per http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/itely/ , 114 popular words end with “-ately” but only 17 end with “-itely.”)

            That’s not unique among the many tangled spelling rules of the English language, but very odd nevertheless.

            I’m sure deeper study of the roots of “definitely” would turn up more insights.

            Or, perhaps ours is one of the few realities using this spelling, and most people have spent considerable time in timestreams where it’s “definately.”

            Cheerfully,
            Fiona

        1. I still get confused over this one. Keep wanting to spell it with an A, Spell Check keeps underlining it in red, LOL! I would also swear that “dilemma” once was spelled “dilemna,” no matter what the grammar websites say. And “it’s” used to be both a contraction of “it is,” and the possessive form of “it” (in the same way that we would write “Maria’s book” or “the car’s windows”). I remember going through a brief period of confusion over this about ten years ago, or perhaps earlier, then switching to using “its” as the possessive after having to look it up. I’ve always been good at spelling and grammar, so it’s unusual for me to be confused over something so basic.

      2. Wow, although I admit that dilemna is a word with an unusual spelling and it “should” be dilemma phonetically, dilemma just looks plain WEIRD. I’m 50, always loved writing and was an English major back in college and I was never aware of dilemma. But spellcheck just tried to change it for me here. Hmmm.

        1. It is dilemma dialogue and definite in india,india is a major commonwealth nation so obviously the terms are british by origin.The common american words are tire color for tyre colour,that have made their presence in india. often is sometimes pronounced with t instead of it being silent.

    2. I used to be a good speller – not so much anymore. Either it’s part of the ageing process or spell-check has made me lazy. I always have trouble spelling rhythm but I do always try to put an “N” on it and spell-check says that’s not correct. Doing a google search of “rhythmn” shows I’m not alone. To be honest, both look wrong!

      1. That’s so bizarre. I have a distinct memory of typing up a elementary school assignment and being so confused when spell-check corrected “rythmn” to “rhythm.” I remember thinking, “When did they change the spelling?” To this day I get weirded out when writing the word because I swear it used to have a silent “N”!

      2. I always want to spell it “rhythym,” which also looks wrong! Maybe it’s just an odd word that lends itself to different spellings. But the final -n looks familiar, perhaps I once spelled it that way and forgot.

    3. I have always spelt dilemma as dilemna, and remember learning the unusual spelling by pronouncing it as di-lem-na in my head. Until about a year ago I assumed it was British/ American thing.

      I also remember the first time that I realised ‘gymn’ was wrong, and thinking that it must have changed overnight. I was only about 10 or 11 (1999/2000), so it’s completely plausible that I was just wrong, but the word ‘gym’ seems awkward and ugly to me, just as much as ‘dilemma’. I can’t accept either as correct spellings. I also agree that rhythm should have an n and I feel like it used to be spelt that way.

      I also used to spell definitely as definately, and separate as seperate, but I completely accept that these were spelling errors, and I was just wrong. It confuses me that I would accept that I was wrong for these words, but be so adamant that I was right and the universe was wrong about gymn and dilemna.

      1. Rebecca Leigh – I also spelled dilemna by saying di-lem-na in my head as well. Kind of like Wed nes day, which I hope hasn’t changed. Dilemna, with the NA, is actually a really common memory people have. I have no problem believing it was an alternate spelling – I just don’t why dictionaries don’t acknowledge it.

        I’d never heard gym with an “n” on the end but at least that one would make sense since it is gymnasium and gymnastics.

        The weird thing about the spelling “definately” is that I would spell it that way in the past but I had to think about it before I spelled it – it never made sense to me that there would be that “A” in there but I would put it there because that’s how I learned it. Definitely is simple and elegant – definite plus ly, but it’s not the way I learned it and I don’t remember spellcheck always correcting that one. But who knows…

  7. My friend and I came across this website after discussing the fact that I remembered an alternate ending to the film Big. I clearly remembered Susan showing up in his class at the end of the film and although we found possible endings to other films that could have triggered this memory, they weren’t what I remembered. I also clearly remember Berenstein Bears. I find this all very interesting!

    1. Hey, I remember that too, but I was very young. It’s a blurry memory. I’m pretty sure I remember Susan coming back as a kid too. I even remember watching it when I was around ten and mentioning to my mom that the ending they showed wasn’t the one I remembered. Not sure, I was only three or four the first time I watched it.

  8. On another forum i saw that people were surprised to learn that the singer/actress Barbara Streisand now is known as Barbra Streisand. I was surprised myself when i looked it up. According to the info i found on the net she altered Barbara to Barbra early in her career to make her name stand out a bit.

    1. Mikkel,

      That’s a good catch! You’re right. Per Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand#Name ), she changed her name at age 18. She’d cut her first music demo at age 13, but her name change occurred when she began performing. Anyone who remembers her (in this timestream) as “Barbara” would have seen her perform in 1960 at at The Lion, “a popular gay nightclub in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village,” per Wikipedia. That’s when the name change occurred, before she was discovered and made her first real album.

      So, while the name change did occur, the likelihood of anyone remembering her as “Barbara” in this timestream… it’s slim. Not impossible, since some of our readers are old enough to have seen her at the club in NY, but still very slim.

      Cheerfully,
      Fiona

  9. I should be in bed asleep and instead I’m caught up on-line in alternate memories. I just read something I had never heard before either. I remember hearing and reading about the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, which happened in 1932, but I’m pretty sure I heard the baby was never found – it was an ongoing mystery as well as a tragedy. Now I read that the baby’s body was found a few months after his kidnapping! This is really surprising, although these alternate memories get somewhat less surprising every day…

    1. Julia, I’d removed this comment (at your suggestion) but, after I did — so no one new would have seen it — someone said she remembered that the baby’s body was never found. So, I restored this, and I thought you’d like to know why. (The other person’s comment is part of some other “alternate memories” she shared in confidence. She has several memories like yours. Very cool!)

    2. This is news to me, as of today. I’ve seen a few comments that almost made me comment before, but this is the one that did it. The Lindbergh baby was on all kinds of those mystery shows when I was growing up, like Unsolved Mysteries and the plethora of old History channel shows. I found it terrifying but interesting. The baby nor the kidnappers were ever found, I KNOW this is how the story went (at least until now I guess).

      In my timeline/ universe (I should start saying this to truly freak people out haha) it was Berenstien Bears, chartreuse was a dark red color, Australia was far away from everyone and it was Interview with ‘A’ Vampire.

      All of this is very very weird to me and I’ve made myself a bit ill thinking about it.

    3. While I don’t share your memory of the Lindbergh baby, this reminded me of another memory– that Agatha Christie was never found. It was in one of those “Unexplained” sort of books that I had as a kid (and it’s been driving me absolutely insane that I haven’t been able to find my copy again). I read that book over and over, and i know that Agatha Christie disappeared and was never found.

      Doctor Who did an episode about her, where she was found ten days later after being rescued by the Doctor and I was kind of bothered that they’d change history like that. But it got me wanting to read some of her books so I looked her up to see her list of writings and was completely shocked to find out she’d turned up alive after ten days.

      1. I am so glad you said something about Doctor Who!!! When I read about Agatha Christie never being found I instantly thought of that episode. Call me crazy, but this whole website makes me believe in the Doctor. How he said is “wibbly wobbly timey wimey” makes me think that maybe him, or somebody, is time traveling and every time somebody time travels, things change a little bit but the Doctor knows what he can change without completely destroying the world. So maybe he is real and that’s why little things do change quite often.

Comments are closed.