Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lopixa

  1. 4 hours ago, zArk said:

    they are not actual pictures or photos of space, they are CGI derived from data sets.

    it is mans imagination creating the stars


    What? The stars are real enough. Have you never been lucky enough to look through a big telescope - it is a wonderful moment to see the sky suddenly open up. Friends of mine have tracking telescopes and have taken really long exposures of the Milky Way galaxy. Andromeda is also a common target:-


    The Andromeda Galaxy | Images, Facts & Astrophotography Tips (astrobackyard.com)

  2. 11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    Do you always patronise people and attempt to riddicule them to try to win arguments? That's quite sad really.


    I think it sad that you feel patronised when somebody disagrees with your viewpoint. You have no evidence for your claims - you claim some mysterious unidentified group are doing some unspecified things when they do the impossible going back in time routine.


    11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    Occams Razor points to the simplest explaination, which is the timeline has changed.


    That is the most ludicrous of all explanations. 


    11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    Your explaination that of mass memory disfunction is not the simplest explaination


    It isn't necessarily any dysfunction. There are many of these so called Mandela effects and each one can have numerous reasons for what has happened. An example being the Magic Mirror - there were two distinct versions one from the movie and one from written works. Dead simple.


    11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    nor does explain the songs and missing paintings.


    There are no missing paintings and songs are written for a whole variety of reasons. Nellie the elephant did not pack her own trunk and cannot talk.


    11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    Your explaination of mass delusion is impossible.


    It seems that you have no concept of what the word impossible means. Besides, isn't it the number one claim on here that society/sheeple are living in that very state? Mass delusion is not actually being tabled as a reason for some of the effects.


    11 hours ago, Diesel said:

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


    You haven't eliminated the impossible, or the implausible, or the unlikely, or dozens of side explanations. First on the list to eliminate as impossible is the idea that people are travelling back in time.

  3. 12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    Science is Fiction, thats a fact.


    A bit of a daft statement - made doubly worse by you proceeding to use a science experiment to support it!


    12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    The mere obsevervation of an experiment can change it's outcome (read Double slit experiment for definative proof).


    And you said science was fiction. Some of us have actually performed this experiment. It is from science that we now know the duality of light and it is not the act of observation that changes any outcome, it is the knowledge that we now know the path of the photons and thus the interference pattern can be measured as such. Basically it is the method in which you observe the outcome that changes the result.


    12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    All of newtons laws fall flat on there face at a molecular level.


    So what. They work just fine at the level where humans interact with forces. 


    12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    You attempted to limit the conversation to a movie. It really was quite pathetic


    No, I attempted nothing of the sort. What I did was answer the post I quoted. Do you think it may just be a little pathetic to label science as fiction then use a science experiment to bolster that claim? Neither of your examples managed to help your claim - you attempted to limit science to two instances that you don't seem to understand.


    12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    I thought the explaination marks might prompt you to answer the question instead you post some bullshit youtube video from 2016


    A simple question or request usually does the trick. Fifty exclamation marks just looks a bit weird. As for the video, I appear to have missed any response to it - is one going to be forthcoming?


    12 hours ago, Diesel said:

    No images before 2002 to a bible passage we all remember from youth


    Most of the popular websites that host images didn't really get going until the turn of the century. Mobile phone cameras weren't around and although editing software was available it was nowhere near as commonplace as it is today. As for your "we all remember" claim - I just did a quick Q & A amongst a group of people I am with. Not ine of them had heard of it, neither had I and when pushed, everyone thought Wolf and Sheep mad far more sense.



  4. 45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

    Your on an alternative thinking forum, welcome.


    Which doesn't mean any of it is actually real. Postulating stuff for fun - why not. Believing it - nah it's science fiction.


    45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

    To limit Mandela Effect to one thing is an arguement of Manipulation. 


    What one thing?  There is no limit being imposed just the idea that the most obvious explanation tends to be the correct one.


    45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

    Occams razor is very much in effect here - the answer is they are messing with our timelines.


    I can see that you don't quite get what Occam's Razor is. Imaginary people messing with time is the opposite of it.


    45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

    Lets go back to the one you care to avoid Lopixa "The Lion shall lay with the lamb" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    What was that 50+ exclamation marks? I am not avoiding anything here, I hadn't got a clue what you were talking about.


    45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

    Can you tell me why there are no images that predate 2002 


    No, because I had no idea what you were on about. However, after a quick google:


    The Lion and the Lamb (Mandela Effect Debunked) - YouTube




  5. 6 hours ago, Human10 said:

    There is probably reflector behind... Here is an example.


    Okay - not terribly relevant - perhaps if you had a snow event on a similar camera that would be more convincing. Looks like bullets and shells though and no other cameras have this 'snow'. It's also ever so slightly a side argument now, unless anybody is seriously suggesting that there is no fighting going on.

  6. 5 hours ago, KingKitty said:

    The actress who plays Dolly said she never wore them, yet you say you recall seeing them on her in the early part of the movie. Now, who's not making a valid argument?


    Do you acknowledge that human errors exist in multi million pound films? Okay, so your argument was invalid.


    Now this actress who said she didn't wear them. I believe this comes from some screenprinted twitter translation. What leads you to conclude it must be correct?


    nb. I'm not saying she never said this btw. I'm also not discounting someone in the editing suite beng instructed to add them after filming. It's just a subject where the idea of Occam's razor very much stands out. The alternative explanations are just off the wall tbh.

  7. 1 hour ago, KingKitty said:

    It is not simply unlikely, but improbable that a movie on the production cost and scale as a James Bond movie would have such a huge continuity oversight. Not to mention the fact that the actress who played the role of Dolly says she never wore braces in the film.


    That is not a valid argument. Budgets don't account for human error. I cannot categorically say one way or the other what occurred here, but I do know I recall her openiung scene wearing them. But, I don't recall seeing them later on in the movie.


    1 hour ago, KingKitty said:

    As far as "Mirror, mirror on the wall...", That's all I've ever heard my whole life. The other versions I only heard of once I began reading about MEs. If someone said to me (prior to reading about this particular ME), "Magic mirror on the wall...", I would have said, "What the hell are you talkin' 'bout!?!" I've NEVER heard it as "magic mirror". Now, if you can earnestly and honestly say that you recall it as magic mirror, I will not dispute you. I would believe you. Which makes this all the more fascinating, to me. There is the possibly that we are both recalling these things correctly. Which is (I believe) the reason the thread was created. Could this suggest an parallel universe(s)? Other questions this raises are: Who is responsible? Or, is it a natural occurrence? Is it time travel to the past causing a "Butterfly Effect"? Perhaps, glitches in the Matrix?


    Did you click the link? Both versions are right and of course like everybody I recall Mirror Mirror. The point is that we aren't recalling this from the movie, but from what others wrote or said after it.



  8. 1 hour ago, Fluke said:

    Sorry. You said earlier you agreed this was a hoax? Or at the very least a distraction. You did write that didn't you? I could see it. I'm sure others here saw it too.


    You must be mixing me up with someone else. I haven't said anything like that. I think it's crazy Putin trying to put back the USSR. The motives for what is going on behind that well, I'm open to suggestions. It's genuinely happening though.

  9. 8 hours ago, ink said:


    Bullshit .... I remember Dolly, who HAD braces (the whole point of the scene) and it WAS Mirror Mirror!


    Just because you do not recall and prefer whatever bull you are told to believe .... do not be mistaken about some of us actually remembering!


    Bullshit back at you. Your memory is based on memories of someone else's mistake. The magic mirror quote is explained here:

    Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall – Debunking Mandela Effects


    Dolly DID have braces in the very first scene and not in any another. This represented a continuity error that was later fixed. Sheesh - or some parallel universe thingamajig is in place.

  10. 1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:

    There were no munitions going off nearby of any merit. The microphone was not being swamped. 


    Go back and read what I said! I said if they wanted to record a nearby shell or explosion it would swamp the microphone and this is why it isn't a particularly loud noise.  Go play it on loudspeakers and turn it up full volume.


    1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:

    Back in March 2020, I was so scared of the news reports coming out of Italy of rows of coffins in churches, convoys of army lorries taking all the overflowing numbers of COVID victims for cremation and the scary hospital scenes, that I got in my car and drove to Italy and stayed there, in the north, for 3 months.  I found there was sweet FA.🤣


    Completely different subject, nothing to do with this thread.


    1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:

    The cold war was a psyop of fear and division. There was no risk of a nuclear armageddon, it was all BS, including the parades of rockets and bunker building. 


    There was no risk because of M.A.D. Only Russia and China appear to parade their military might. I know of nobody who also lived through that period who were affected in any manner as to believe the world was going to end.


    1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:

    You can carry on and believe everything that comes out of the mouths of these liars and all the figures they spout.


    Which liars are we talking about now? Who do I believe, people who claim artillery is fireworks or news reports showing them landing? At what point do any deniers of incidents ever come close to acknowledging that they may be wrong? I said this before, I can think of no realistic way to convince anyone who denies something completely than to take them there to where it is happening. I envisage a whole series of social media accounts that I'm sure you will classify as fake.


    What would it take reasonably for you to be convinced?




  11. 4 minutes ago, DarianF said:


    Sorry we didn't add the obligatory SJW trigger warnings to all our posts. 😄


    Classifying yourself in the group.  Pointing out your pervy comments is not being a social justice warrior. Quite ironic considering that many on this forum appear to think there are numerous levels of social injustice prevalent in all societies.


    Perhaps if we touch on one of yours you would be less dismissive.

  12. 10 minutes ago, DarianF said:

    To me, it's a massive obvious difference between fireworks and the shelling (as per above), even just on youtube.


    Big sigh. Rewind: Somebody said that they had heard louder fireworks than some earlier reports of bombing. Hence my response. Certainly some of the louder fireworks like airbombs can certainly resemble a shell, albeit incredibly lower in volume. So recording artillery and bombing and playing it through speakers will not even come close to the true sound and volume. There is an obvious difference between a fireworks display and shelling, but not so much with really loud fireworks like the one noted above.

  13. 2 hours ago, DarianF said:



    Microphones seem just fine.



    Not very close are they and still sounds no different to fireworks, which is my point. You aren't really going to capture the correct volume on a TV camera microphone. Maybe if you plugged it in to your stereo, turned it up to 180dB and added some bass frequencies you might be able to be scared shitless. Being there though I would suggest is scarier.

  14. 1 hour ago, Orange Alert said:

    I have heard better and more intensive bangs with New Year's fireworks.


    I'm sure you have. If you actually record the sound of a military shell going off nearby it swamps the microphone with too much noise. Denying this is occurring because you think the sounds aren't right is not a good yardstick. I was actually thinking this through last night and wondered what it would take for people to believe this is happening - the only answer I could come up with was to get you on a plane and put you right in the middle of it.


    42 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:

    So they say. 


    Not unlikely at all. That's a relatively low number compared to the past.

  15. 22 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

    There are TACTICAL nukes these days for use on battlefields. 


    Moving the goalposts. The posts made by you both referred to the blast pattern of a nuke hitting London, as was the follow up discussion. Incoming ICBMs with 500+ kilotons would flastten London and the pattern of the blast would be pretty much as quoted. The altitude of the explosion is much higher than the highest points around London.


    22 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

    The strategic "Mutually Assured Destruction" ICBM format is old hat.  T


    Old hat? How is it not relevant now? - all super powers know that if they use their weapons on another they will be annihilated. Mutual and assured destruction - no stealth/surprise attack will work either.


    22 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

    The concentric circles are bullshit, pure propaganda. 


    Nonsense, blast patterns move that way. There isn't any need to use propaganda withy nuclear weapons - everyone knows that if one goes off, you're toast! Of course very high areas will channel the blast but since the original statements were around London, and since most major cities are reasonably similar - a predominantly concentric blast pattern would be expected.


    22 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

    Take a look at the difference between the shockwave damage between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, local topography played a part and it didn't involve huge mountains!


    You're basically saying the mountains stopped the blast, but since the target was THIS side of the mountains it was destroyed. Both bombs were tiny compared to modern nukes. Be specific and tell me what you think the purpose would be of any propaganda concerning the blast patterns of a nuclear weapon. Any legitimate target would be pulverised. The Soviets have 4,500 warheads and estimates of 2-300 would kill every person on mainland UK. Whether you were hiding on the other side of the mountain or not.


  16. 20 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

    We are looking at the seeds of WW3.  Can't use nukes?  Not large strategic ones, but tactical ones on a battlefield could be a possibility.  


    Any use of nuclear weapons with the West as first users will escalate this to full scale exchanges. That is why they cannot use them. Nuclear weapons were always this M.A.D. acronym and to a very large extent that is pretty much why they won't get used. Putin is Mr. Mad but I suspect even he isn't insane enough to use them.

  • Create New...