"Mandela Effect Anomalous Memories Investigation: This 18 page series (full list here) uses my own Walkers Crisps Mandela Effect experience to demonstrate how discussions of ANY/ALL Mandela Effect Experiences are all themselves consistently anomalous, specifically because essential/basic/important information relevant/central/critical to the 'ANOMALIES/EXPERIENCES' being discussed aren't even mentioned. In contrast, this series examines/evaluates memory 'composition' as well as important memory recall factors (feelings, emotions, internal states, inner sensations & awareness's (plus senses)) in attempts to not only 'highlight' these discussion anomalies while simultaneously providing comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the Mandela Effect memory anomalies, while even mentioning other apparently 'invisible/impossible to become aware of' memory anomalies too!!!"
Main Page Headings List
- Recall of 'Specific' Memories of Specific 'THINGS' are NOT Equal in Terms of How Often they were 'EXPERIENCED'
- Recall of 'Specific' Memories of Specific 'THINGS' are NOT Equal in Terms of the Conditions of 'HOW' they were 'EXPERIENCED'
- Memory Recall of Specific 'THINGS' are NOT Equal in Terms of HOW they 'EMOTIONALLY' IMPACT EACH INDIVIDUAL
- The Quality of EVALUATION of Memories is Dependent on the Scope/Scale of Experiences of the Investigator
The second ‘specific memory circumstance’ question to use as a starter to improve your awareness of aspects of yourself is this:
“Try and Remember, Recall, Feel into and then Describe or draw in detail Pokemon’s Pikachu (or any other visually ‘equivalent’ Pikachu).”
The recall of memories for the above will likely involve different factors compared to the first wedding/death event example quite simply because they are of completely different circumstances in that the first ‘memory’ question is of a one off ‘significant’ experience while the second question above is of memories relating to something that despite ‘likely’ being way less significant is actually of something that will be seem regularly and in some cases consistently/continuously over significant spans of time (could even be for an hour or more at one time) while often also being seen on a daily basis too.
Recall of ‘Specific’ Memories of Specific ‘THINGS’ are NOT Equal in Terms of How Often they were ‘EXPERIENCED’
Personally, I myself never played this ‘as a game’ I can vaguely recall ‘Pikachu’ as ‘possibly’ being a kids TV cartoon type character that may or may not have had a tail.
However, as this character also seems to have been presented as a ‘cuddly’ toy as well as an integral part of computer and hand held games then I’d imagine that some people will have visually regularly seen this ‘form’ while also being completely ‘engrossed’ in this ‘character’ for 100’s if not 1000’s of hours. Basically, this ‘character’ (for some people) ‘should/will’ be impressed/imprinted in their memory IN EVERY DETAIL because it would have been in one form or another ‘regularly’ in view/seen.
Basically the memories of different ‘experiences/items/things’ are NOT EQUAL and as such each ‘item/object/thing/event/experience’ being recalled/remembered or ‘NOT’ will have to be evaluated with respect to many different factors many of which will be PERSONAL/SPECIFIC to the individual and or specific to the actual ITEM/EXPERIENCE being recalled.
You’d need to know how often ‘something’ is seen in your life now/recently and or how often it ‘was’ seen in the past and perhaps under what conditions before you could make an evaluation about whether it’s realistic or not to find yourself ‘now’ recalling this ‘something’ DIFFERENTLY to how it is IN REAL LIFE/CONSENSUS REALITY NOW!!!!
Recall of ‘Specific’ Memories of Specific ‘THINGS’ are NOT Equal in Terms of the Conditions of ‘HOW’ they were ‘EXPERIENCED’
For example although I very likely saw ‘Pikachu’ in the past in some form, BUT, because I obviously didn’t have an ‘investment’ in anything regularly featuring this character then the only clear memory I have of this character is of it been ‘cartoon like’ and generally yellow, beyond these vague details I’ve no idea. For others however, it’s absolutely not realistic that ‘something/anything’ regularly seen/experienced likely ‘DAILY’ never mind in some cases for HOURS AT A TIME such that ‘IT’ was REGULARLY SEEN/HEARD/TASTED/SMELT/INVOKED EMOTIONS’ such that it’s become part of your EMBEDDED FULL SPECTRUM MEMORY INVOLVING REGULAR EXPERIENCES AS WELL AS MANY DIFFERENT MEMORY ‘SENSES’ would ever be recalled incorrectly and particularly with respect to some ‘items/event/experience’ combinations that exhibit very specific multi-spectrum sensory as well as embedded emotional/feeling characteristics.
From the above, it AUTOMATICALLY follows that it is not in the slightest realistic that large numbers of people that all regularly played a computer game and or regularly ‘saw’ a specific character on their computer/in a game/or TV show and or as a cuddly toy would themselves then mis-remember any obvious detail never mind for MANY, MANY people to all CONSISTENTLY miss-remember EXACTLY THE SAME ‘SPECIFIC’ DETAIL of ‘something’ actually isn’t realistic in the slightest.
Also, we all have senses/sensations and therefore ‘memories’ of hearing/sounds/background music/never mind ‘catchy’ tunes, you will also have memories of smells and tastes and MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU ALSO HAVE MEMORIES OF ‘EMOTIONS/FEELINGS’ AS WELL AS MANY ‘INTERNAL STATES/AWARENESS’S’!!! The more different types of ‘sensory/emotion/feeling/inner states’ that are included as part of any memory/experience you have (of any ‘specific’ memory) the harder it is to forget and the EASIER IT IS TO RECALL!!!
So, again for anyone investigating these possibilities with respect to individuals/people having alternate memories of this item/any item/thing then you’d also have to make an effort to find out HOW THEY RELATED TO THIS ITEM, and particularly if you wanted to be ‘thorough/PROFESSIONAL’ in your investigations/evaluations then you’d have to find out HOW THIS ITEM/THING specifically impacted themselves in terms of ‘feeling’ and specifically with respect to any significant ‘associations’ this item had for that specific individual (you cannot use yourself/how you’ve been impacted or not by ‘something’ as a measure of how others will or could be impacted by the same thing).
Memory Recall of Specific ‘THINGS’ are NOT Equal in Terms of HOW they ‘EMOTIONALLY’ IMPACT EACH INDIVIDUAL
Just in case you still don’t get what I’m trying to explain above then I’ll give you a ‘realistic’ hypothetical example:
“Two teenage kids as ‘boy & girl’ whom become friends/eventually started a relationship because they loved playing ‘Pokeman’ and identified or had as their meeting ‘mascot’ the ‘Pikachu’ character as a foundation part of their friendship/relationship whom then both remembered this character incorrectly would be very, VERY ODD/HIGHLY ANOMALOUS!!!”
So, ‘if’ you want to make ‘decent/realistic’ evaluations related to anomalous memory possibilities then you’d need to examine each memory anomaly instance individually.
These evaluations would also be helped if you’ve put the time and effort into become aware of YOUR OWN INTERNAL STATES & ‘FUNCTIONING’ and particularly as part of understanding what contributes to your own attitudes, behaviours, reactions as well as perhaps engrained, embedded beliefs which perhaps you are unconsciously/automatically accepting as correct without actually questioning these or ‘worse’ perhaps ‘NOT’ even noticing THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING?
How much is your own past personal experience (or lack of experience of certain things/possibilities) as well as your unconscious embedded beliefs are directly or indirectly impacting your evaluations of the experiences of OTHERS and particularly with respect to anomalous experiences and particularly those which you have not experienced yourself . . . which ‘coincidentally’ would suggest that you are actually way LESS QUALIFIED to actually evaluate these compared to those that HAVE EXPERIENCED THESE?
The Quality of EVALUATION of Memories is Dependent on the Scope/Scale of Experiences of the Investigator
People whom ‘experience’ anything anomalous should actually be ‘seen’ as the primary people that ‘should’ be evaluating themselves/their experiences because it’s specifically those that have these experiences that actually have all the details of these experiences/of what actually ‘happened’ WITHIN THEMSELVES, as well as of how they were personally impacted by these as they happened, never mind that perhaps in some cases they may actually have or ‘feel’ of some understanding of the basis/emergence of their anomalous experience too.
For many if not ‘ALL’ CASES/INSTANCES the main impacting factors of many ‘ANOMALOUS’ experiences are essentially UNOBSERVABLE and as such they are often only conveyable in any ‘understandable’ form to OTHERS WHOM HAVE HAD THE SAME/SIMILAR EXPERIENCE/EXPERIENCES!!!
I suggest you spend some ‘significant’ time thinking about the above possibilities because it seems to be an automatic embedded assumption/belief that people whom have absolutely no experience of WHAT ARE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES that relate to and IMPACT PEOPLE IN UNKNOWN TO EXTERNAL OBSERVER ‘INTERNAL’ WAYS that the person that is EXPERT in themselves with respect to ANOMALOUS EXPERIENCES/MEMORIES etc. etc. ARE ACTUALLY THEMSELVES . . .
If you want to research ‘experience’ based anomalies then you should (if possible) be trying to PERSONALLY replicate the conditions that resulted in the anomalous experience being experienced in the first place, I ‘DO’ appreciate that this is impossible for many anomalous experiences, however it is possible for others (which I’ll point out on later pages).
‘SUPER’ EXPERTS would be people/anyone that had actually spent significant time orientating to and making a consistent effort to become aware of their internal landscape as well as their ‘ACTUAL’ internal functions/functioning as opposed to people whom have not only NOT DONE THIS AT ALL but haven’t even considered that doing this WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA!!!
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .