The Mandela Effect: False Memory

[fizzy55]

Cin

Contrary to popular belief, the amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere, especially in the UK, has reduced significantly over the last 30 years, so this could effect how the sun looks.

I think so too.

 

[fizzy55]

Changes in atmospheric pollution levels could have an effect on this. I bet inside that LA smogball the sun will look fuzzier and more yellow.

Changes in the atmosphere seems like the most likely answer to me, but only if other people have noticed the changes too and I don't know how I could bring this into most conversations I have with people. Not many of my friends share the same sort of interest in the odd or hard to explain like I do and would rather not talk about anything like this as it scares them. They would just say no and I'm imagining it.

 

[fizzy55]

And maybe I am?! Childhood memories tend to have a tint and glow about them anyway. At least the happy ones do. I've only met the one person who remembered the sun being yellow. I asked my other half and he can't recall the sun looking any different.
So I'm stumped.

 

[Nosmo King]

Changes in the atmosphere seems like the most likely answer to me, but only if other people have noticed the changes too and I don't know how I could bring this into most conversations I have with people. Not many of my friends share the same sort of interest in the odd or hard to explain like I do and would rather not talk about anything like this as it scares them. They would just say no and I'm imagining it.

That's why we are here

 

[fizzy55]

That's why we are here

That's true

 

[MorningAngel]

I was going to say eyesight. As you get older and get cataracts it can change colours.

 

[Ringo]

The Mandela effect that really weirded me out was the Kurt Cobain fluffy coat one.
Many people (including myself) remember a particular image of Mr Cobain wearing a hat with ear flaps, large white sunglasses and a furry pink jacket. Back in the early 90s that image was everywhere. My friend at the time was a big fan and had that particular image hung on her bedroom wall. I remember it clearly.
Apparently it doesn’t exist.
what does exist is this image which is the same apart from him wearing an animal print jacket.

There is an image of him wearing those sunglasses and a pink jacket but no hat.

 

[Vardoger]

Apologies if something like this has been discussed before.
I was recently in conversation with someone and they mentioned feeling that the sun had changed colour.
I looked at them in bewilderment and they told me to think back to my childhood, playing outside, and they asked me what I remembered the sun looking like.
My word, I realised, they were right.
I remember the sun from my childhood as a soft yellow ball of light, not the bright white blaze I see now in my adult years.
A quick search online showed that other people remembered it this way too. There were theories on what the answer may be, but nothing much that made sense to me.
So I find myself wondering:
Has it always looked the way it appears now and the way I recall it is only a false memory?
I'm no scientist and I'm the first to admit I know not very much science in general either, but has something changed in the atmosphere maybe, which could make the sun appear white where it once seemed to appear more yellow?
Or is it as simple as the changes in a persons eyesight as they get older and the way we process light maybe that could account for the way the sun seems to look different to some of us as we age?
I've felt unsettled by all this in a way I can't explain. I think it was just the shock of realising that something so important, so vital, appears to have shifted and changed when I was not looking and not knowing if the change has occurred inside or outside of myself, if that makes sense.

Less polution these days.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Changes in atmospheric pollution levels could have an effect on this. I bet inside that LA smogball the sun will look fuzzier and more yellow.

Yes, that's probably it.
My first thought after I'd read fizzy55's post.

 

[escargot]

The very fine indigestion product Gaviscon used to be advertised on TV with a combination live action/animation depictions of people with heartburn and cartoon firefighters hosing down their insides.

I clearly remember the two firemen holding hands at the end and sliding away somewhere together. This amused me as they did look like macho gay stereotypes.

When I looked at Gaviscon ads on YouTube this morning the firemen didn't hold hands and instead, said their goodbyes and took a bow.
So have the camp firemen been redacted or did I imagine it all?

(There are also of course rude skits to enjoy.)

 

[AgProv]

Something that's really been niggling. From earliest under-ten childhood (latter 1960's) I remember seeing the winning teams at major football games forming a human pyramid and passing the Cup up to the man on the top to proudly brandish. I recall this was a sort of cultural icon that stood out and lingered; seeing film of this on creaking fuzzy B&W TV when Iwas about five and six, and later in comics of the Roy of the Rovers genre.

Intermittently searching the Internet for evidence this sort of thing ever happened - no trace whatsoever. Not even a mention in passing, and searching old film and reproduced sixties comics - nothing comes up. This is oddly disconcerting!

 

[MorningAngel]

Something that's really been niggling. From earliest under-ten childhood (latter 1960's) I remember seeing the winning teams at major football games forming a human pyramid and passing the Cup up to the man on the top to proudly brandish. I recall this was a sort of cultural icon that stood out and lingered; seeing film of this on creaking fuzzy B&W TV when Iwas about five and six, and later in comics of the Roy of the Rovers genre.

Intermittently searching the Internet for evidence this sort of thing ever happened - no trace whatsoever. Not even a mention in passing, and searching old film and reproduced sixties comics - nothing comes up. This is oddly disconcerting!

This made me think of the famous picture from 1966. But it’s only one guy held up. But that’s what came to mind.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I recall this was a sort of cultural icon that stood out and lingered; seeing film of this on creaking fuzzy B&W TV when Iwas about five and six, and later in comics of the Roy of the Rovers genre.

You are not imagining this - I am of the same vintage.

FA Cup Final - Blackpool 4 V Bolton 3 (1953)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This made me think of the famous picture from 1966. But it’s only one guy held up. But that’s what came to mind.

I think you will find that is a hoax photograph.

I have checked my 'Scottish Hstory of World Football' and it is nowhere to be found.

 

[escargot]

This made me think of the famous picture from 1966. But it’s only one guy held up. But that’s what came to mind.

I'm of a similar age and think I know where you've had this from.

A prestigious Cup was presented on a dais or balcony or summat so the camera would be pointed upwards towards it, and the sight of Bobby Moore hoisted onto the shoulders of Geoff Hurst and Ray Wilson might give the impression of a human pyramid.
Of course that famous photo wasn't taken on the dais but the image was repeated on TV along with the presentation shots so a young child might mix them up.

We were only kids.

 

[catseye]

I'm of a similar age and think I know where you've had this from.

A prestigious Cup was presented on a dais or balcony or summat so the camera would be pointed upwards towards it, and the sight of Bobby Moore hoisted onto the shoulders of Geoff Hurst and Ray Wilson might give the impression of a human pyramid.
Of course that famous photo wasn't taken on the dais but the image was repeated on TV along with the presentation shots so a young child might mix them up.

We were only kids.

Plus, if you think of the likelihood of injury in a bunch of fairly hefty men forming a human pyramid, and the supposition that even professional footballers would be supple and strong enough to bear the weight - I think it would have been discouraged by trainers/management.

 

[escargot]

a bunch of fairly hefty men forming a human pyramid

Now there's an image.

 

[AgProv]

Plus, if you think of the likelihood of injury in a bunch of fairly hefty men forming a human pyramid, and the supposition that even professional footballers would be supple and strong enough to bear the weight - I think it would have been discouraged by trainers/management.

And it would be more likely to be seen in a comic like Roy of the Rovers as the artist could exercise visual licence and not be constrained by awkward reality or gravity. Got it!

 

[AgProv]

The very fine indigestion product Gaviscon used to be advertised on TV with a combination live action/animation depictions of people with heartburn and cartoon firefighters hosing down their insides.

I clearly remember the two firemen holding hands at the end and sliding away somewhere together. This amused me as they did look like macho gay stereotypes.

When I looked at Gaviscon ads on YouTube this morning the firemen didn't hold hands and instead, said their goodbyes and took a bow.
So have the camp firemen been redacted or did I imagine it all?

(There are also of course rude skits to enjoy.)

But the adverts are still given working titles such as "like a fireman came through your back doors" and much is made of the, err, spurting, of foamy thick white stuff from a rigid hose... there is a definite sub-text here. also, I do recollect the hand-holding: being innocent, I read it as the two firemen shaking hands afterwards, in the knowledge of a job well done. Very manly and macho, nothing gay to see here at all, and that sliding-down-a-pole business has no gay subtext whatsoever.

 

[AgProv]

I'm also thinking a TV advert has to fit into 20 or 30 seconds. It has to tell a very tight, very fiercely condensed, story. Each episode within that story has to be just long enough to convey the point but cannot be onscreen for more than one or two seconds. The longer the advert, the more it costs to screen. So there can be no spare or inessential sequences. I've noticed before that an advert might be "tweaked" during its TV lifetime - you get used to one version, a particular scene might stick out, then a week or two later you see it again and that stand-out scene has either gone or it's been truncated. disconcerting if you've go used to a striking visual image - and these things are made to provide visual images that stick in the mind. Which could well cue a Mandela moment if the visually striking scene that's established itself in your head goes, but the advert is otherwise the same as before.

Sometimes bits are cut to make the story flow better or to get the same effect in a shorter running time. Sometimes there are legal reasons, sometimes because of something unintended or just not seen in the editing process. This is an example: for incontinence knickers or a similar product, illustrating the idea that whatever indignities or embarrassments life throws your way, you'll at least be spared visible dampness.

Woman in lift with man she finds attractive; gets out of lift; lift doors close trapping her skirt; lift goes up; she struggles ineffectually to escape predicament.

I remember the original screened version was a little longer and dwelt on her struggles to pull her skirt free and down around her knees again; the camera lingered for longer on the hem being somewhere up around her chest. This was edited down to a half-second glimpse, and reasons given were variably that it was too sexualised; that it demeaned women; more plausibly, when this sort of thing has happened in real life it can become a life-threatening emergency, and not something to make a humorous advert out of (and that people of a Jackass disposition might contrive to make it happen). And, for the North American market, the allegation that her knickers were bunched up in the classic "camel-toe", thus to a certain sort of mind, every bit as bad as if she'd gone commando. Whatever the reason, after a few months the advert was re-edited so that there is the barest establishing glimpse of exposed knickers, whch, incidentally, match the dress...

I miss this advert. The current ones for Tena Lady, with the drip-drip-plonk-plonk backing music so evocative of leakage, don't quite cut it in the same slapstick-funny way.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Plus, if you think of the likelihood of injury in a bunch of fairly hefty men forming a human pyramid, and the supposition that even professional footballers would be supple and strong enough to bear the weight - I think it would have been discouraged by trainers/management

I remember watching this and it 'seriously wasn't funny at the time'.

Until right now, I had no idea Steve Morrow nearly died.

A somewhat Fortean near-death!

 

[Zeke Newbold]

I kind of thought that the `Mandela effect` trope had more or less died down since the pandemic - as the same old examples -Berenstain/Berenstein, `Luke I am your father`, and so on keep getting trotted out to the point of exhaustion.

However there is one guy calling himself All Time who is gamely trying to keep the show on the road. I'll link one of his posts below.

Be warned though: they are horribly moreish! Here are some things I have gleamed through sitting through a few of his postings:

I am not much impressed by the supposed changes in the spelling of brand names. Most of these brand names are bespoke mutations of existing words (eg `Hpnotique`) and so it is natural that our mental image of them will default onto the existing spelling of the nearest related word. This is especially the case when we remember that there is no penalty for getting the word wrong. We just go into a shop and grab the product - we never need to be able to spell the name or even recall it that much.

The Mandela thing generally is very culturally Amerocentric - not a criticism, just a fact - so there is a whole load of references to TV shows films and bits of American historical folklore on which I have no opinion as it is all new to me. Likewise anything involving video games (and there are quite a lot of those).

However, there is a load of stuff that would come into the Exploded Common Misconceptions category. These ones are actually quite educational. Here are some that intrigued me:

* Jules Verne's classic adventure novel Around the World in Eighty Days does NOT feature the use of an air balloon.
This one is not all that surprising really. Verne was showcasing the cutting edge of transport technology of his time - viz steamers and trains - and how this was shrinking the world. Air balloons are slow and unreliable and don't quite fit with that. (He did write a novel called Five Weeks in a Balloon however). I believe some of the screen versions have Phileas Fogg going about in a balloon so people are probably thinking of that. What IS a bit strange is that many of the covers of the original novel feature the image of an air balloon though!

* No embalmed mummies were discovered inside any of the pyramids in Egypt! They were all found in buildings near the pyramids but not actually inside them.
This raised my eyebrows , but on reflection it's not all that strange. We learn in primary school that the pyramids are thought to have functioned as tombs. Then we are told about Mummies and how these are the embalmed bodies of deceased leaders. Naturally, not being Egyptologists, we will then put two and two together and imagine the mummies as being located in the pyramids - but it doesn't follow.

* Charles Lindbergh was not the first person to make a transatlantic flight - but actually the 82nd!
This one was really discombobulating, but it does appear that transatlantic flights themselves were a relatively common feat before Lindbergh came along (including some solo ones). I did some of my own research on this and from what I can gather Lindbergh's real triumph was to fly from city to city - which involved a longer distance than just going coast to coast as the others did. So this is an example of an historical event being telegraphed into simple language (`The first man to do a transatlantic flight`) thus creating a misconception. Still strange though. Maybe a student of American history can shed more light on this?

Anyway, here's one of All Times videos:

 

[EnolaGaia]

...
* Charles Lindbergh was not the first person to make a transatlantic flight - but actually the 82nd!
This one was really discombobulating, but it does appear that transatlantic flights themselves were a relatively common feat before Lindbergh came along (including some solo ones). I did some of my own research on this and from what I can gather Lindbergh's real triumph was to fly from city to city - which involved a longer distance than just going coast to coast as the others did. So this is an example of an historical event being telegraphed into simple language (`The first man to do a transatlantic flight`) thus creating a misconception. Still strange though. Maybe a student of American history can shed more light on this? ...

Lindbergh was flying in an attempt to claim the Orteig Prize, which specified a winning flight had to be non-stop between New York and Paris (flying in either direction).

Earlier transatlantic crossing prizes hadn't been constrained by specific cities as departure / destination points. As such, there was an element of navigation included in winning the Orteig Prize.

The Daily Mail prize that Alcock and Brown won in 1919 specified only that the flight be from anywhere in North America to anywhere in Great Britain or Ireland and completed within 72 hours. Because they achieved the crossing without any stops, there was no point in competing for a 'first non-stop' flight thereafter.

There were multiple significant firsts in transatlantic crossings in the subsequent years, most of which involved intermediate stops and even changing airplanes.

Multiple teams were attempting to win the Orteig Prize in 1927. All of them - like all previously successful transatlantic flights - involved a crew of two or more fliers.

Lindbergh's decision to plan and execute a solo attempt was something new. AFAIK no one had attempted, much less completed, a solo transatlantic flight before Lindbergh. If there's an earlier successful solo transatlantic flight somebody needs to inform Guinness.

Lindbergh won the prize by flying non-stop between New York and Paris. He won his enduring fame by doing it solo (which hadn't been a requirement of the prize).

 

[Austin Popper]

Lindbergh was a big hero of mine when I was around 13 years old. I read his books (took me a while; they are long) and learned everything I could about him and his flight. Many years later, I made it to the Smithsonian, where the plane was on display up high, but you could get a pretty close look at it from the second floor, iirc. Seeing the thing was quite the experience. It's a kite with a big engine and a big fuel tank. I decided, upon seeing it, that he was nuts. He was either extremely talented or extraordinarily lucky. Maybe a bit of both. He was one minor mechanical malfunction away from death and obscurity.

I have been meaning to re-read his account of the flight. He did have a lot of experience flying at a time when they were still very much making it up as they went along. Electric lights on farm houses provided much needed navigation aids to the people flying the mail at night. Radio communication was still in the future when he started that job.

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Here's a Mandela or Exploded Misconception...or whatever - of my own: it Being Wrong to Give Cats Milk.

I don't own a cat but my family owned one in the seventies/eighties and I'm pretty sure that we fed it with milk now and again - as a special treat.

I mean, dogs like bones and cats like milk, right? That's why we have phrases like `He looks like the cat that's got the cream`, etc.

But now I hear from cat owners that one shouldn't give cats milk. There is even an air of moral righteousness in their insistence that on no account should a cat be given milk - because - because....whatever.

One cat owner I know never gives his cat anything to drink - it just subsists on rain water found in his garden, apparently.

So, when did the `science change` on this - and why? C'mon cat owners - fess up!

 

[escargot]

Here's a Mandela or Exploded Misconception...or whatever - of my own: it Being Wrong to Give Cats Milk.

I don't own a cat but my family owned one in the seventies/eighties and I'm pretty sure that we fed it with milk now and again - as a special treat.

I mean, dogs like bones and cats like milk, right? That's why we have phrases like `He looks like the cat that's got the cream`, etc.

But now I hear from cat owners that one shouldn't give cats milk. There is even an air of moral righteousness in their insistence that on no account should a cat be given milk - because - because....whatever.

One cat owner I know never gives his cat anything to drink - it just subsists on rain water found in his garden, apparently.

So, when did the `science change` on this - and why? C'mon cat owners - fess up!

I've always given cats milk and even cream, if they're lucky. Most have enjoyed yogurt too. Hasn't seemed to do them any harm.

Anyway it's definitely bad for hedgehogs. They like cat food.

 

[MorningAngel]

Here's a Mandela or Exploded Misconception...or whatever - of my own: it Being Wrong to Give Cats Milk.

I don't own a cat but my family owned one in the seventies/eighties and I'm pretty sure that we fed it with milk now and again - as a special treat.

I mean, dogs like bones and cats like milk, right? That's why we have phrases like `He looks like the cat that's got the cream`, etc.

But now I hear from cat owners that one shouldn't give cats milk. There is even an air of moral righteousness in their insistence that on no account should a cat be given milk - because - because....whatever.

One cat owner I know never gives his cat anything to drink - it just subsists on rain water found in his garden, apparently.

So, when did the `science change` on this - and why? C'mon cat owners - fess up!

I think the thinking now is they are lactose intolerant and there are special milks for cats. I’m not sure when it changed or if they are intolerant how it took people so long to notice.

 

[MorningAngel]

‘Myth #1: Milk makes an ideal food for cats​

The traditional image of a contented cat lapping from a bowl of milk is a misleading one. Cats are very fond of cream, which they value for its high fat content, and so they are especially attracted to milk that has come straight from the cow, especially after the cream has been allowed to rise to the top. However, the milk we now buy in supermarkets contains little fat, and while some cats may like it for its taste, many do not find it easy to digest.’

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-cant-cats-drink-milk-plus-6-other-feline-myths/

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Next we'll be told that bears have an allergy to honey!

Sorry, but I seem to be on a roll with this Mandela thing at the moment. Here's another (this one suggested by All Time):

The Guido Fawkes mask based on the film V for Vendetta. This has become somewhat iconic of late owing to its use in civil liberty demonstrations and the like.

I'm not going to post an image of it because I don't want to prejudice your answer to the following question: what colour is it? Or, to put it another way - does it even have a colour?

If you're like me you will visualise it as being purely black and white - a white face with black eyebrows and moustache.

If you agree then go now and do an an image search on it - and prepare to get unnerved.

The mask `now` (or always had) features(d) a camp splash of pink on its cheeks and lips. It just looks so WRONG!

And in case you think that this could be a recent innovation - then, sorry, but the guy in the film (which I haven't seen) also ,it is said, likewise has rosy dabs on his lips and cheeks.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Next we'll be told that bears have an allergy to honey!

Sorry, but I seem to be on a roll with this Mandela thing at the moment. Here's another (this one suggested by All Time):

The Guido Fawkes mask based on the film V for Vendetta. This has become somewhat iconic of late owing to its use in civil liberty demonstrations and the like.

I'm not going to post an image of it because I don't want to prejudice your answer to the following question: what colour is it? Or, to put it another way - does it even have a colour?

If you're like me you will visualise it as being purely black and white - a white face with black eyebrows and moustache.

If you agree then go now and do an an image search on it - and prepare to get unnerved.

The mask `now` (or always had) features(d) a camp splash of pink on its cheeks and lips. It just looks so WRONG!

And in case you think that this could be a recent innovation - then, sorry, but the guy in the film (which I haven't seen) also ,it is said, likewise has rosy dabs on his lips and cheeks.

After the movie came out, there were a plethora of cheap Guy Fawkes V clone masks on sale.
My son bought one for a fancy dress party and it was definitely just black printed eyebrows and beard on pale cream-coloured plastic. I have seen some with the rosy cheeks and lips effect though which, I don't think, look as effective.