The Mandela Effect Cause:
Can History Truly Change?

Last Update: 8 May, 2024

What is this Issue Concerning?

This issue is about whether or not it's possible for history to change, after the fact, and if this has actually happened.

Why does it matter?

This is a stunning topic which questions the foundations of our reality. The idea that history doesn't change is foundational to most people's sense of reality, not to mention many insitutions of it, such as Law. If history can change, after the fact, the implications are so great as to be incalculable for most human minds.

How did it get its name?

The term is coined from some people remembering that Nelson Mandela died during his long stay in prison, when in fact history shows that he died much later and after becoming president.

What is the Mandela Effect?

According to the conventional narrative, the Mandela Effect is a term for a kind of delusion where multiple people mis-remember something, sometimes with a great feeling of certainty.

The data point being ostensibly misremembered can be literally anything from the name of a breakfast cereal to the location of a country on a map, and sometimes the people affected are 100% sure about the way they remember it.

An example of the Mandela Effect is remembering Darth Vader’s famous line towards the end of the movie, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, as, “Luke, I am your father”, which history shows was always, “No, I am your father”: you can’t find even the oldest recording which has it with ‘Luke’. Other examples:

  1. Fruit Loops versus Froot Loops cereal

  2. Captain Crunch versus 'Cap'n Crunch' cereal

  3. 'Jif' versus 'Jiffy' peanut butter

  4. Monopoly banker cartoon character: with eye monacle versus no eye monacle

  5. Bible: 'lion will lie down with the lamb' versus 'wolf will lie down with the lamb'

  6. Bible: 'wineskins' versus 'bottles'

  7. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back: 'Luke, I am your father' versus 'No, I am your father'

  8. Berenstein Bears versus 'Berenstain Bears'

  9. Tienamen Square: Tank man was run over by the tank not taken aside

  10. Curious George: with tail versus without tail

  11. so many other examples... Please see the resources, below, for more.

Although the victims are often very sure about what they remember, a check of not only the present but the recorded of history of the data point shows it was always the other way.

Presumably there are other many other cases of mis-memory involving facts about someone's personal life experience only, which are not widely shared, but they wouldn’t get much attention compared to wide social realities we have all shared. For example:

  • At 12:20 of this video, there is a report of a woman who used to shop online her credit card numbers simply out of her head because she had memorized them. One day a website complained the number was wrong. Checking the physical card she discovered the number was completely different from how she remembered it, and neither did it correspond to any of her previous card numbers.

  • At 1:40 of this video, there is a report of a man who wakes up to find his favourite musician, whom he'd met and been following (alive) died 20 years ago, and all of his friends' phone numbers are out of service.

Once the historical version is noticed, the victim's consciousness tends to slide into agreement with it, unless their memory is very strong. Due to this tendency, if polling others as to their memory, it is critical to get them to declare what they remember, in a fixed way, before revealing the historical version.

How important are the things being remembered different from history?

They are across the entire range of importance, from the most insignificant to the position of continents to the structure of your ribs or location of your heart in your body. Some examples:

Resources on the Mandela Effect include (please forgive this disordered and partly unlinked list for now; we plan to clean this section up later):














































  46. of the world





  54. theory
  57. censorship
  59. denial
  60. chic a fil
  61. Mona Lisa
  62. Mona Lisa
  70. Tinkerbell
  71. Tinkerbell
  80. lilo & stitch
  81. VW
  83. p61
  126. last pt of set
  128. Sydney
  133. Mandela Effect Bee Gees - How Deep Is Your Love

  134. Mandela Effect - HAAS Avocados NOW 'HASS' Avocados -residual data,scientific papers -Quantum Entanglement

What's Wrong with the Conventioanl Explanation for this Phenomenon?

Unfortunately for truth, and besides being quick to dismiss someone's memory as unreliable, the conventional narrative ignores some significant facts about this phenomenon which should have been alarming:

  1. The same data point is remembered, in a way which doesn't match the historical record, by many people. For a real example, many people remember the name of a famous 'Berenstain Bears' Children's books cartoon family in a way which doesn't match the recorded history of that serious of books (more on this following).

  2. The data point remembered is remembered against the historical record exactly the same way by those many people. Continuing the example, it's not that different people remember the name of the cartoon bear family all sorts of different ways, but besides those who have no problem with the historically-accurate 'Berenstain Bears' name, there are many people who remember it sepecifically as 'Berenstein Bears' [emphasis ours] and that's all (not, for example, anyone remembering them as 'Barnacles Bears').

    If that spelling never existed, how could so many apparently independent peope remember it not only wrong but exactly the same wrong way? The conventional narrative ignores the significance of this: even if it is a delusion, for so many apparently independent people to mis-remember exactly the same way suggests some kind of external factor at work to get the same data to all of them.

    In a complete disrespect of human memory, the conventional narrative brushes aside anyone who doesn't remember it the way the historical record shows, no matter how many people, as simply proof of how unreliable humans are.

  3. In some cases the ostensibly misremembered version of reality makes more sense than the historical version. For example, in the song I'll be Home for Christmas, at least as sung by Bing Crosby, many people (including ourself) clearly remember the phrase, "you can count on me", but history shows it as "you can plan on me" [emphasis ours]. Doesn't 'count' make more sense?

  4. In rare cases, there is actually hard evidence (!) that the data point was actually the way it was ostensibly mis-remembered (which is supposed to be impossible!). Researchers call this a 'residue' of the other reality. Continuing with the 'Berenstain Bears' example, although the historical record shows it was always spelt that way, isn't it at least interesting that we found these images (unaltered by us):

  5. As if that wasn't strange enough, sometimes the history in question is reported to change back and forth although, for obvious reasons, evidence of this is the hardest to nail down. Still, one video shows the title of a physical book physically change demanding on whether the Presenter steps into a certain room or not: please see here

  6. As if that wasn't strange enough, there are reports that some old cell phone cameras can view the alternative (old?) reality on affected objects today in real time! Please see the many (almost a hundred as of this writing) videos starting with the title 'How to See Into a Parallel Dimension' by TheThoughtPolice on TikTok: even if this camera effect is totally fake, at the very least these episodes are useful in exactly showing the reailty which many people remember on many different Mandela Effect issues.

Our Original Evidence

The Bible has a parable (Mark 2:22) where Jesus talks about the foolishness of putting new wine in old bottles, and how that could burst them:

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles." (Holy Bible, King James Version, Mark 2:22).

Since bottles being made by hard material (usually glass), does it make sense that bottles burst due to the liquid contained being new or old? Wouldn't it make more sense if the containing material was more soft, organic, and therefore vulnerable to the live cultures and active enzymes of new wine?

Depending on the version of the Bible you are looking at now, it might say 'bottles' or 'wineskins' (please see here).

We remember it as 'wineskins' only. We have posted a video showing a King James Version (KJV) Bible physically in our hands, where although the gospel verse does read 'bottles', the glossary referring to the exact same verse provides an explanation of 'wineskins' (which is how we remember it). If it was never 'wineskins' in the King James Version (KJV), why did the publisher of a KJV Bible bother to include, in the back of the same book, a written and even pictoral explanation of the word 'wineskins' specifically for that verse? Here's a link to our video: Mark 2:22 -- Bible Dictionary of same KJV Bible shows word 'Bottles' was once 'Wineskin(s)' -- Proof of Mandela Effect.

More Evidence:


What it's like to experience the Mandela Effect?

In the conventional narrative view, it would be like waking up one day and realizing that everyone is calling you David, which surprises you, because you know your name is Steve. You check and not only your friends but your official documents and correspondence all say David. So eventually you shut up and go with it, or you seek the help of a psychiatrist, surrendering to the hard evidence over what you remember, on the assumption that hard evidence doesn't lie and people can misremember.

The real experience of the Mandela effect is often more than that. Starting with the same scenario used above, it would be like finding an old birthday card, from your non-deceased mother, which you cherished and kept, where she wrote your name as 'Steve'. Did Mom misremember also?

How does the Establishment Treat This?

The Establishment seems to know but strictly suppress awareness or at least fair acknowledgement of this phenomenon. For example, A search for 'Mandela Effect' on Wikipedia lands the user on a page entitled 'False Memory' and frames the phenomenon only in that context. Similarly, many videos, especially on tightly censored video sharing sites, tend to present the issue on the assumption that it is and can only be delusion.

Some describe the Establishment as much more aggressive than that, even to be willing to kill, to erradicate awareness of this phenomenon. For example, please compare these video clips regarding a movie which ostenisbly never existed:

Nevertheless, it's our opinion that the Establishment may now have a more relaxed fear of the Public finding out, as well as more recent more damaging Public harms to cover up. They seems to have come to the conclusion that the Public never does anything, no matter what the Public finds out, no matter what they do to the Public.

Questions which This Issue Brings Up:

  1. How much do you believe your own memories over what the world around you says you should have remembered?

  2. How many other people remembering something the same wrong way is enough for you to suspect that something is happening beyond misremembering?

  3. Is there any evidence of the other reality? What would you say if you found some?

  4. What could be causing this?

Working Explanation:

Our theory of the immediate cause of this effect is C.E.R.N., because of this effect only starting around the time C.E.R.N went fully operational, especially around the time of discovery of the Higgs boson, and because one of the scientists, in an official music video of C.E.R.N., wore signage which, if interpreted meticulously, seems to indicate a reference to the Mandela Effect (the first actor who played James Bond was Barry Nelson).

However the mechanism is physical and cannot overpower strong consciousness, which is superior by universal law. It seems that the reason some fragments of the former reality remain is that someone has fixed that detail strongly in their consciousness, before the change, allowing that detail to resist the change. For example, in our Bible, we remember meditating on the wineskin diagram, before the change, and that must have helped it persist through the change. Still, it seems to require significant focus of a strong mind, because even many people with strong childhood memories of a product were not saved from that product's history changing.

What the Threat Is:

The threat is both the effect (where it's something important), and whatever is causing the effect, by which we mean:

  1. The effect itself, the changeability of anything in history including corresponding physical objects or records, would mean that nothing in this world is truly reliable. Among other things, this means that hard evidence is no longer always more reliable than witness testimony, especially if many witnesses agree. It also means that even if you have a room full of gold guarded by the utmost security, you could wake up and it could not only all be gone, but, according to the historical record, have never existed.

  2. The cause of the effect, whatever it is, means that someone or something has the power to change our reality even our history, directly (not just changing the narrative about our history). This is extremely dangerous for us, because we don't know who or what that something is, and it has direct power over the fabric of our reality.

IMPLICATION: What does this mean for us on a daily basis?

If the past of our physical reality is malleable, that means that it is not has physical as it seems: not even a wave or a memory but something which exists in changeable form in a medium which permits that change. It supports the idea of living in a simulation, where our reality is not somuch physical objects whose existence is fixed in the past and requires energy to change in the present, but our reality, past present and future, is merely information which can be changed wherever that information is stored and read from to generate our reality.

Some religions seem to support this, although without clear emphasis on this point. For example, in Christianity, the model of our existence here is that we are spirits which have a body (and a soul between them). The implication is that we are spiris who not only have a body but experience this reality through that body primarily. In other words, our body interprets the information it receives through its senses for us to experience as sensations. However the underlying reality we are experiencing as sensations may not exist as the physical world it is presented to us as, but might be mere information interpreted into a physical experience by our body annd presented to our spirit that way.

Both religion and research into the Mandela Effect support the theory that this life on Earth is nowhere near as important as the more-real Afterlife, which we should be investing in more than this world. As Christ advised us, we should store up our treasures in heaven rather than here, because the heavenly life last and this one does not. This life is nowhere near as lasting or even as real as the spirit or After life. Invest there more.

Lay up your treasures in heaven:

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Bible, KJV, Matthew 6:19-21)

Focus on your eternal wealth more than the wealth of this world:

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
(Holy Bible, KJV, Luke 12:16-21)

What You Can Do About It:

Oppose C.E.R.N., especially with prayer, since it seems so far beyond politician interest.

Other Resources:

  • Mandela Effect channel on Brighteon

  • Please ignore the 2019 movie called The Mandela Effect does, at least as posted on Amazon Prime, IMDb, and Wikipedia. It seems designed to mislead seakers from the topic. Although it starts out with valid questions it jumps into pursuit of the most radical one in the most reckless way and the most ridiculous ending: as though this entire issue is madness.

Back to Homepage

Flag Counter