Mandela Addendum

It’s interesting that this doesn’t seem like much of an issue to many of you. I get it, though. I’ve been watching and editing films for a decade, many of them documentaries that include that portion of Ike’s speech. It really is possible that I’ve heard it/seen it a hundred times.

When it came on the other day with the stutter, I’m telling you the hair stood up on my neck and I had to sit down. But I get it that that’s just me, and that a part of this is how sure I am that I never heard it that way before. And I had it on my editing ‘timeline’ (a Final Cut term) and futzed with it in an old version of Water Time. (Obviously, I would have noticed a stutter.)

Another problem — a reason why many don’t see this as important — is that to understand the strangeness of the ME you have to think of it on several levels, levels that make ‘everyone remembers it wrong’ or ‘anything can be digitally changed nowadays’ or ‘it’s another psyop’ sound reasonable when they are actually irrelevant to a ‘rational’ explanation. The best long-standing example of this is still ‘Dolly’s braces,’ from Moonraker. I mean if the best the PTB can do (via MM) is ‘The spooks break into our houses and libraries and change everything’ then we know, or should know, that something out of the ordinary is going on.

It’s similar to the moon numbers, which necessitates multi-leveled thinking as well, and then, when the true strangeness kicks in, we are likely to wave it off and try to forget about it, and the implications thereof. Like at the end of Terminator, when Sarah Conner is sitting in the Jeep trying to figure out the contradictions inherent in time travel to the past– in essence, the tremendous hole in the story we just watched — and then she says ‘You could go nuts trying to figure it out.’ This was James Cameron ‘plugging up’ the hole in his story. Don’t worry about it! Life is more fun if you don’t think about it.  And so forth.

The other similarity with the moon numbers is that a ‘higher power’ is also inferred, when you get right down to it. And with the numbers it looks like that higher power is alerting us to its existence with those numbers: Since both chance & necessity are ruled out (as causes of the matching numbers), there is no choice but to point a finger at an ‘intelligent designer’, who is maybe curious to see if anyone notices.

And of course almost no one does.

Addendum: I have to repeat that the ME is not a condition one ‘has’ or ‘suffers from (or does not),’ but rather the disparity (between ‘believers’ and non-believers) is a function of ‘denial,’ in the same sense as belief in the official story of 9/11, or anything comparable. It’s just another level of that. When reality itself breaks down, we really don’t want to hear about it, and are likely to revert back to ‘simplistic’ causation, like ‘faulty memories’ or ‘a psyop.’

Yes, I know about Occam’s Razor, including the ending, which says that ‘simple is better’ only if simple explains all the evidence.

I do agree with the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ demand, although key in this piece of ‘wisdom’ is defining ‘extraordinary.’ What’s more ‘extraordinary,’ that millions of people are all wrong about something in the same exact way, or that a ‘higher power’ is manipulating them/us? See, in this case we can’t use numbers, not really, to ‘figure the odds’ one way or the other. Same with the moon numbers. The problem in both cases is that we have only one ‘data set’ to work with: This solar system, just one. This universe, just one. This reality, just one. You can’t figure numerical odds with only one data set. So it will come back to this question: Do you trust your own memory?

Anyway, I trust I will be forgiven for assuming you all would jump up and down in agreement that the stuttering is a ME. But the point still remains that as of a couple days ago, the first 27 versions of Ike’s Speech came up with 17 stutterers (the ‘new’ version) and 10 non-stutterers (the ‘old’ version that, it seems, everyone remembers). Almost twice as many new versions as old.

What are the odds that all these people never came across the ‘new’ version? Miniscule. Probably in the one in a million area. If you don’t believe me on this, I will try to find the peer-reviewed studies that verify the veracity of human memory when many people agree on something. 

Addendum: I am currently listening to Zeitgeist Addendum (a pretty good film), which I’m told contains the ‘old’ version without the stutter. I’ll then archive it, along with the date of archiving and the date of the film. It would be great if some of you did the same thing with other films that are likely to include the clip. There are a shit load of them. Then we wait and see…

We may be in a unique circumstance. As mentioned, I just saw the ‘new’ version for the first time, having recently seen the old. This could mean that we’re in a ‘transitional period’ between one version and the other. Yes, I know, this is a mind-bending concept, and tempts us to wave our arms and claim faulty memories or a psyop.

How about those who are so sure nothing weird is going on just suspend judgement, at least for a while, sit back and wait to see if any of my archived videos ‘change.’ (I would ask you all to put both versions of my Ike Archive videos onto your hard drives, just to be sure. This one and this one.) Check them for accuracy first, i.e., see if I mixed up versions. One video separates the old ones and the new ones; in the other they alternate.

The question comes down to this: Is it our minds being fucked with or that which is outside of our minds being fucked with? When you put it this way you tend to see the problem: If we can’t really separate minds from matter (‘matter’ here being digital media) then the question becomes extra-complex, if not meaningless. At least that’s the way I look at it.

#

I reread Nick Bostrom’s ‘Simulation Theory,’ mainly because I wanted to see if he is as full of shit as I remember. Check this out:

If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. (my emphasis)

Wow. Here is a guy who spends a lot of time and mental energy wowing us with his higher-learning lingo — in telling us we’re almost certainly living in a simulation — yet not a peep out of him about a phenomenon that… I dunno… a horde of people see as the sort of ‘irregularity‘ he’s talking about!! I mean, can you even imagine better ‘evidence’? Why isn’t he all over this? Again, isn’t it exactly what he tells us to be on the alert for, as evidence of simulation? (Ditto the moon numbers, by the way.)

No, old Nick, he’s not going anywhere near the Mandela Effect (or the moon numbers). See, as a philosopher in the employ of the PTB it’s okay to talk the higher power talk but not to walk the walk.

Here’s another example of how close his Simulation Theory matches the implications of the ME/moon numbers:

 In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens. [changing details just for the helluvit would be a piece of cake, and fun, too.]

Not to get off-track here, but do you all see how utterly full of it these PTB pundits really are? Bostrom could and should be doing surveys at his Future of Humanity Institute, to calculate the probabilities that millions of people remember major public and cultural events ‘the wrong way.’ (You can use Google Trends to see this without a survey.) See, the problem is that in many cases the probability would approach nil; and if all those people are not ‘wrong’, then we have direct evidence that we are living in a simulation! Can’t have that! Might make folks think that something is wrong. (If anyone is curious about just how full of it Bostrom is, go back and look at my Open Letter.)

Okay, I’m going to spend some time looking for documentary films with the Ike clip. I’d love some help on this.

Allan

Here’s an interesting essay on the ME. And this one on the ‘Eisenhower Dime,’ which I remember as a kid.