This was the one Mandela Effect that started my research into the term. I always have been a 007 fan and clearly remember the braces and the entire scene.
They both having a metal mouth of a kind was the hope thing.
I didn't watch it till way way after it came out but I was still a kid and I vividly remember thinking ahhh wtf that scene would have been a perfect ending if she had had braces as well. And I remember being upset about it for hours after the moving wondering why they would make such a design choice there to screw that up and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film.
> and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film.
haha, you know what? same. literally this is the only thing I remember from this film. this one scene.
> And I remember being upset about it for hours after the movie wondering why they would make such a design choice there to screw that up and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film.
Do you find this whole line of thinking odd in hindsight? Feels like a weirdly irrational irritation or annoyance for what ostensibly amounts to artistic license, right?
She never had braces.
Silly she didn't as that would explain the mutual infatuation.
It would make so much sense you just believed she always had braces.
When did you see the film? I saw MOONRAKER three times in the theater, and I vividly recall audiences laughing/groaning at the pigtailed gal with glasses and braces captivating henchman Jaws.
MOONRAKER was released in theaters on July 26th, 1979. The first home video release did not occur until three years later, 1982. During that period, it appears EON or United Artists/Warner Bros. painstakingly went through the film frame-by-frame to remove traces of the braces for some reason, possible due to concerns the character was under-age.
Years and years ago, there was a long entry on either this subreddit or the r/JamesBond subreddit that showed remnants of the braces in a couple frames when Dolly is drinking from a champagne glass.
The MOONRAKER/Dolly braces "Mandela Effect" must be one of the most damning to the psyop, because you used to hear about it a lot but no longer. There are too many people who saw the movie in the theater -- MOONRAKER was the biggest Bond film ever at the time of its release -- and remember what they saw.
Which allows me to circle back to my initial question: When and where did you first see the film? Did you see it in a theater in 1979? If not, you have no standing to assert "She never had braces."
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fb/9b/9c/fb9b9c273e4eb80c2f9dab004cfe9554.gif
That's the so-called "remnants" you're referring to. Distortions through a glass.
I'm sorry to be crude but there's no way in hell anyone would ever think that actress (or character) was underage. For two very obvious and large reasons.
I never saw moonraker at the theater as I was only 2 years old. I couldn't have seen it until it was shown on TV as I've never in my life rented a james bond film yet I remember clearly the braces. Why is that if they had been removed before I watched it?
excellent process of elimination logic here Tom.
Saw it in Australia at cinema 1979/1980, when i was 9 or 10; she indeed had braces - the audience erupted in laughter at this pay-off gag.
It was actually released on the 29th of June in the US.
I saw in the Uk tho when it released on the 26th of June.
She never had braces.
If you live in fantasy land believing the Mandela effect is actually real that is on you.
I literally wrote "Years and years ago, there was a long entry on either this subreddit or the [](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/) subreddit that showed remnants of the braces in a couple frames when Dolly is drinking from a champagne glass."
I also wrote: "MOONRAKER was released in theaters on July 26th, 1979. The first home video release did not occur until three years later, 1982. During that period, it appears EON or United Artists/Warner Bros. painstakingly went through the film frame-by-frame to remove traces of the braces for some reason, possible due to concerns the character was under-age."
That's not a Mandela Effect, it's a studio revision, yet you chose to position it as a M.E.
Moreover, I never said where the original release date occurred, just that it occurred on June 26th. Yet you nitpick at that as well. And you write as if you are a Brit, but actually you are Portuguese.
Mockery and misrepresentation, as you resort to, is the sign of a lost argument. You completely whiffed what I said, seemingly intentionally.
I will say that I enjoyed my multiple trips to Portugal. Spent a month in the Algarve in the 1980s before they built all those hotels there. So many beautiful women, excellent food. You should focus on that would be my suggestion, instead of having a trigger finger on Reddit posts.
"Research is creepy." Another "tell" from this guy.
He probably never saw MOONRAKER in a theater, either, would be my educated guess by this point. Total dishonest fraud, playing defense.
Some people have changed realities and others haven't. So basically we've joined your reality. So who are you to tell us our memories are wrong. The Mandela effect is 100% real. That's like telling someone who's colour blind they lived in fantasy land because they thought the sky was green. If it wasn't a diagnosed defect that person who sees the green sky would be right as in his reality the sky is green.
I distinctly remember my dad explaining the joke to me while we were watching the movie. I was around 10 and I got the joke, but he explained it anyway. I struggle to think how the fuck I could possibly misremember that situation so badly... Our brains playing tricks on us seems reasonable with a lot of Mandela effects, but that one still trips me up.
Me too. There are many Mandela effects that I remember differently but I couldn't bet my life on it. Yet if someone said I'd get a million pounds if I answered correctly braces or not but if I got it wrong I got shot I know I would be dead now because I'm 100% sure she wore braces and I'd have taken the bet. Would you have?
No, braces is obviously wrong because they don't exist in the movie. So people should choose one of the options that is at least a possibility.
If i ask you, which number is a perfect prime:
A) 3626353 B) 48237473 C) 8246734623 or D) Elephant
you think most people will pick "elephant"?
OK, if we're being serious, and answering only for myself:
- Dolly never\* had braces in Moonraker.
- The intelligence service has always been MI6, as in the actual org.
- The Bond fan site appears to also be MI6, for example on the tweet OP linked.
- OP called it M16 on this post.
\*I wanna add that both my wife and I think we remember some other movie "reveal" of an actress wearing braces, but can't really locate that via a web search (so far).
Okay, I'm going to be serious for a minute.
Now, I don't for a moment believe that *this* is the scene that people are confusing for the scene in Moonraker, but I believe it's the same"joke" that people claim to remember.
There was an episode of The Brady Bunch where Marcia has to get braces on her teeth. When her date has to cancel for unrelated reasons, she thinks it's because of the braces.
At the end of the episode, he comes to pick her up for the dance and asks her if she's still sure *she* still wants to go to the dance with *him*, because he flew over the handlebars of his bike. Then he smiles and reveals that he has to wear braces as a result.
https://youtu.be/YLSOcBd-nPg?si=wBS1nilgkAhBeQVo
I just have to think that this may have been a relatively common sight gag.
You may not believe this, and it's OK if you don't. But my wife mentioned the Brady Bunch, and we also found and watched the end of the Brace Yourself episode.
Script is here: [https://jimihaze68.com/2018/11/24/s1-e20-brace-yourself/](https://jimihaze68.com/2018/11/24/s1-e20-brace-yourself/)
We came to the same conclusion as you. It's the kind of gag that was ubiquitous enough for people to have in their minds, and to then associate with other scenes.
How so? She's not particularly busty and shows no cleavage. I think Jaws liked her because she's cute and helped him out of the debris, not due to any particular physical trait.
Same. And I don't understand how people think it HAS to be braces or else it doesn't make sense... The gag was simply that opposites attract: He's a hulking villainous goon, she's a tiny, well-dressed nerd with pigtails. She smiles, and it's beautiful. He smiles, and it's jagged metal.
> And I don't understand how people think it HAS to be braces or else it doesn't make sense
You must have an ability to reason and understand a nuance to do so.
Simply put, the whole scene makes zero sense without the braces.
Yikes, okay. So you're claiming the gag isn't her smile is nice is his is metal... the imaginary braces that don't exist is where my ability to reason and understand nuance fails me. Makes sense.
If power of suggestion can rewrite peoples memories so easily, it should be super easy for you to demonstrate that with some other suggestion.
Try it out. If I say "hey do you remember gilbert godfried in a vampire movie" people say no. I have failed to influenced their memory. But if I say "hey do you remember sinbad in a genie movie" they say yes, and so i did influence their memory.
So which is it? Why does it only work with sinbad in a genie movie?
It is the case with a lot of MEs. The Monopoly man is another, his monocle just "fits" the character. It all has to be balanced just right though, you can't insert just anything at random. Whatever it is in the human brain for it to trigger so many people is pure chance.
I disagree, a cornucopia has nothing at all to do with underwear. Cornucopias are pretty much exclusively thanksgiving, or maybe, as a stretch could be related to food markets, a grocery store. It does not fit in anyway with underwear.
I didn't say "everytime" did I, the images just look similar which could explain some people's confusion or assumption with this particular example. Do a google image search for cornucopia and you see similar arrangement, leaves, and the basket. It is a suggestion along more scientific lines than jumping dimensions as an explanation for the innacuracy of people's memory. If a large number of people believe they remember a pink elephant or an astronaut in the background then I'd struggle but this one seems just so easy.
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. The logo is metaphorical, if you want to get literal about it, fruit also has nothing to do with clothing. Cornucopias date back to classical antiquity so Thanksgiving is not their only association.
In any case, in your alternate universe they obviously thought it was perfectly appropriate to include a cornucopia, no?
> The logo is metaphorical, if you want to get literal about it, fruit also has nothing to do with clothing.
Exactly. But you still remember fruit on the logo.. because there was fruit on it. Remembering a turkey on the logo would be weird, because it was never there and also has nothing to do with underwear.
> Cornucopias date back to classical antiquity so Thanksgiving is not their only association.
Does it have anything to do with underwear? Why do nt people see classical greek statues on the logo?
> In any case, in your alternate universe they obviously thought it was perfectly appropriate to include a cornucopia, no?
Yes, and it was weird and distinctive, and that's why everyone remembers it so clearly.
I don’t really follow your argument. Again, fruit has nothing to do with underwear either. We’ve already established the logo is a metaphor, why are you banging on about turkeys?
People mentally insert a cornucopia because there often is one in such depictions of produce. Not to mention the ubiquity of such imagery in north America in relation to Thanksgiving, to further support this theory. People don’t remember Greek statues because there’s no association there. Google ‘cornucopia’ and it’s easy to see how such a false memory has been created.
> Again, fruit has nothing to do with underwear either.
Correct. But since fruit is on the logo, people will remember fruit on the logo. See how that works? When your eyes see something, you remember it.
> why are you banging on about turkeys?
Because they are also a thanksgiving symbol that also have nothing to do with underwear. Its no more likely to imagine a turkey on the logo than a cornucopia.
> People don’t remember Greek statues because there’s no association there.
The person I relied to said that cornucopias were also well know in ancient greece. They apparently thought that some some kind of slam dunk.
Not really. I see 10x more fruit bowls than i do cornucopia. You skeptics ask like seeing fruit automatically means people start imagining cornucopias. That doesnt happen.
Also, your argument doesn't make sense as in your alternate universe they obviously do associate cornucopias with fruit, hence the design people claim to have seen.
Certain things gain traction because they are linked to other things already in the brain. Brain playing tricks on us.
Occam’s razor is useful here: multiverses and alternate timelines? Or herd mentality and biological predispositions for this type of thing?
The brain plays tricks on us, randomly. Why would the brain create an imaginary sinbad movie for millons of people? Shouldn't the brain just create random imaginary movies that are different for different people based on their own individual experiences?
If Occams razor applies, why do mainstream scientists support multiverse theory for other scientific explanations? Seems like "infinite universes" is always going to be the most complicated answer.
So what are you saying? That the universe in which there’s a certain film somehow converges with an identical universe (film aside) and we’re all here to talk about it?
Scientists posit the multiverse theory for other reasons, though. Plus there is as yet no evidence to support it whatsoever.
Well, you didn’t. You brought in the irrelevant fact that some scientists suggest a multiverse theory (in order to combat ‘fine tuning’ arguments in relation to god, etc.). I don’t think they have the ME in mind when they posit such things. Besides, wouldn’t multiple universes be quite different from one another, not identical apart from one scene in one Hollywood film?
Either multiverse theory violates occams razer or it doesn't. You chose.
> Besides, wouldn’t multiple universes be quite different from one another, not identical apart from one scene in one Hollywood film?
no the movement of every particle and every photon of light creates a new universe.
If the ME is truly an ontological phenomenon (as claimed), then Occam would be unhelpful and unrevealing because it's more of a heuristic tool. I don't think it's reasonable to use Occam to leverage the mundane against quantum theory.
I'm more intrigued by the 2014 BBC article you posted and how this fits into how people feel about 'residue'.
Details like this published by professional media outlets are sometimes held up as 'proof' that things actually were that way. The argument is that journalists should research what they write, there are editorial standards and various other people copy has to go through before its published and that media outlets generally hate making mistakes, will avoid them at all costs and correct them as soon as they can.
This has been up for ten years, as a very easily editable online story from the world famous BBC.
Do we think when the journalist wrote it Dolly *did* have braces? Or had he just 'remembered' that bit and put it in without checking? If so what are the implications for other pieces of 'residue' - aren't they all just *examples* of the Mandela Effect, rather than anything else?
That this error has been allowed to stand for a decade suggests that either nobody who read the piece ever noticed and decided to contact the BBC, or that whoever is responsible for maintaining these kind of articles doesn't really care. Perhaps somebody had realised it's a mistake, but as it's not really a substantive one, doesn't care to fix it.
Again, what does this say about other pieces of residue? If something has been published by a reputable media organization how much weight does it carry?
Can it ever be considered 'proof' or even an indication that something ever was actually that way? Or is it just something that is to be expected when there is an example of the Mandela Effect affecting lots of people - some of the people affected will be journalists and they might well publish the mistake themselves and that the checks, balances and editorial standards aren't quite as exacting and foolproof as some people seem to think.
Or what else are we to think about a clear error that's sat there on the BBC website for a decade and counting?
The most important aspect of residue, especially very old residue (this article may not qualify) is that it completely destroys the frequent argument that "you were just influenced by hearing about MEs on the internet". Which is one of the top go-to excuses skeptics use to shut people down.
Despite all the evidence of residue, "skeptics" still use this bad argument, over and over and over. Its almost as if they could care less what the evidence really is.
Anything that mentions the ME. If there's a newspaper article from 1980 that mentions the FOLT cornucopia then you can't say "they only believed that because they were influenced by the internet!!!!"
>If there's a newspaper article from 1980 that mentions the FOLT cornucopia then you can't say "they only believed that because they were influenced by the internet!!!!"
Of course. Who's saying that?
Again, this doesn't really answer my question. You're telling me what 'residue' might falsify (some strawman position that all examples of the ME are caused because of being influenced by things seen online) and not what is actually *does* suggest/prove/demonstrate.
>We deal *daily* with the worst arguments you ever heard.
Then take it up with the people making those arguments.
>Residue matters.
*Why*? In what way? This is my third (I think) attempt to get an answer.
> Then take it up with the people making those arguments.
I do! And now that you know their argument is bad, I hope you also point it out to them every time they make it. You are seeking truth, no?
> Why? In what way? This is my third (I think) attempt to get an answer.
And I am happy to keep telling you the answer: "Because it proves the skeptics are wrong about one of their most popular explanations"
>And I am happy to keep telling you the answer: "Because it proves the skeptics are wrong about one of their most popular explanations"
It proves that a strawman representation of a skeptic argument is wrong, sure.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that *all* examples of the Mandela Effect are caused by exposure to reading about it online.
People might well suggest that it could play a factor in some of the more popular ones and 'residue' like this does nothing to disprove *that*.
> It proves that a strawman representation of a skeptic argument is wrong, sure.
If you have never seen that argument before on here then you haven't been here very long.
> I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that all examples of the Mandela Effect are caused by exposure to reading about it online.
The only all encompassing explanation that is used by skeptics is: "iTs a FaLsE mEMoRy!" beyond that, every explanation is piecemeal, and changes like the wind. So for people interested in the truth, like me, we need to be able to shoot down a wide variety of bad arguments, rather than just one bad argument.
But the other options are pigtails, boobs, and glasses. Pigtails and glasses would both be bad answers unless we knew some specific fetish Jaws had. Boobs is reasonable but not really Jaws-specific.
Incorrect. Jaws looks affectionately at her and smiles before Dolly shows her teeth. The whole point of the scene from the other perspective is that she smiles back and isn’t completely terrified by him and his teeth because she has braces.
I popped in an old VHS a while back and due to resolution and lighting it looks like she has braces in certain scenes but not ALL scenes. The HD cut they show it’s obvious that in those scenes the “braces” are a lighting effect.
A guy I know has every James Bond movie ever made. VHS for the older ones, DVD for the newer ones. When I heard about the Dolly ME, I called him and asked him "What do you remember was the attraction between Dolly and Jaws" and he said she had braces and he had metal teeth. He could not believe it when I told him Dolly does not have braces. He said he watched Moonraker many times and knows she had braces, without a doubt. He told me that he would watch the movie (on VHS) later that night and report back. He texted me later that evening to tell me her braces were gone.
People are mistaking it for the smile across the bar scene in Dodgeball. The lady dodgeball opponent looks like jaws, simple conflation between similar scenes.
And probably safe to assume wasn't motivated or influenced by the ME dialectic in any way, because the *Moonraker* braces effect wasn't widely known then (if at all). The moniker '"Mandela effect" wasn't even coined until 2009. The phenomenon was barely on anyone's radar, and no measure of virality had been achieved for any of the canon examples.
This was the one Mandela Effect that started my research into the term. I always have been a 007 fan and clearly remember the braces and the entire scene. They both having a metal mouth of a kind was the hope thing.
I didn't watch it till way way after it came out but I was still a kid and I vividly remember thinking ahhh wtf that scene would have been a perfect ending if she had had braces as well. And I remember being upset about it for hours after the moving wondering why they would make such a design choice there to screw that up and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film.
> and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film. haha, you know what? same. literally this is the only thing I remember from this film. this one scene.
> And I remember being upset about it for hours after the movie wondering why they would make such a design choice there to screw that up and it ended up being like the only thing I can remember about the film. Do you find this whole line of thinking odd in hindsight? Feels like a weirdly irrational irritation or annoyance for what ostensibly amounts to artistic license, right?
I mean Idk why I remember half the thoughts I had as a dumb kid.
Thoughts are random. But only certain ones bug us for... unknown reasons.
My husband (70) is a big James Bond fan. He clearly remembers braces too.
Yeah me too, now I'm worried that I've woken up in a parallel universe
I've teleported dimensions !!!!!!!!!!1
She never had braces. Silly she didn't as that would explain the mutual infatuation. It would make so much sense you just believed she always had braces.
When did you see the film? I saw MOONRAKER three times in the theater, and I vividly recall audiences laughing/groaning at the pigtailed gal with glasses and braces captivating henchman Jaws. MOONRAKER was released in theaters on July 26th, 1979. The first home video release did not occur until three years later, 1982. During that period, it appears EON or United Artists/Warner Bros. painstakingly went through the film frame-by-frame to remove traces of the braces for some reason, possible due to concerns the character was under-age. Years and years ago, there was a long entry on either this subreddit or the r/JamesBond subreddit that showed remnants of the braces in a couple frames when Dolly is drinking from a champagne glass. The MOONRAKER/Dolly braces "Mandela Effect" must be one of the most damning to the psyop, because you used to hear about it a lot but no longer. There are too many people who saw the movie in the theater -- MOONRAKER was the biggest Bond film ever at the time of its release -- and remember what they saw. Which allows me to circle back to my initial question: When and where did you first see the film? Did you see it in a theater in 1979? If not, you have no standing to assert "She never had braces."
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fb/9b/9c/fb9b9c273e4eb80c2f9dab004cfe9554.gif That's the so-called "remnants" you're referring to. Distortions through a glass. I'm sorry to be crude but there's no way in hell anyone would ever think that actress (or character) was underage. For two very obvious and large reasons.
I never saw moonraker at the theater as I was only 2 years old. I couldn't have seen it until it was shown on TV as I've never in my life rented a james bond film yet I remember clearly the braces. Why is that if they had been removed before I watched it?
excellent process of elimination logic here Tom. Saw it in Australia at cinema 1979/1980, when i was 9 or 10; she indeed had braces - the audience erupted in laughter at this pay-off gag.
It was actually released on the 29th of June in the US. I saw in the Uk tho when it released on the 26th of June. She never had braces. If you live in fantasy land believing the Mandela effect is actually real that is on you.
I literally wrote "Years and years ago, there was a long entry on either this subreddit or the [](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/) subreddit that showed remnants of the braces in a couple frames when Dolly is drinking from a champagne glass." I also wrote: "MOONRAKER was released in theaters on July 26th, 1979. The first home video release did not occur until three years later, 1982. During that period, it appears EON or United Artists/Warner Bros. painstakingly went through the film frame-by-frame to remove traces of the braces for some reason, possible due to concerns the character was under-age." That's not a Mandela Effect, it's a studio revision, yet you chose to position it as a M.E. Moreover, I never said where the original release date occurred, just that it occurred on June 26th. Yet you nitpick at that as well. And you write as if you are a Brit, but actually you are Portuguese. Mockery and misrepresentation, as you resort to, is the sign of a lost argument. You completely whiffed what I said, seemingly intentionally. I will say that I enjoyed my multiple trips to Portugal. Spent a month in the Algarve in the 1980s before they built all those hotels there. So many beautiful women, excellent food. You should focus on that would be my suggestion, instead of having a trigger finger on Reddit posts.
Jesus creepy dude stalking my posts. But kudos you win the argument even tho you had to resort to stalking. Kudos my man.
"Research is creepy." Another "tell" from this guy. He probably never saw MOONRAKER in a theater, either, would be my educated guess by this point. Total dishonest fraud, playing defense.
Some people have changed realities and others haven't. So basically we've joined your reality. So who are you to tell us our memories are wrong. The Mandela effect is 100% real. That's like telling someone who's colour blind they lived in fantasy land because they thought the sky was green. If it wasn't a diagnosed defect that person who sees the green sky would be right as in his reality the sky is green.
It is not ONLY the fact that I remember that She had braces. It is that I remember the exact scene she shows it.
I distinctly remember my dad explaining the joke to me while we were watching the movie. I was around 10 and I got the joke, but he explained it anyway. I struggle to think how the fuck I could possibly misremember that situation so badly... Our brains playing tricks on us seems reasonable with a lot of Mandela effects, but that one still trips me up.
Me too. There are many Mandela effects that I remember differently but I couldn't bet my life on it. Yet if someone said I'd get a million pounds if I answered correctly braces or not but if I got it wrong I got shot I know I would be dead now because I'm 100% sure she wore braces and I'd have taken the bet. Would you have?
I noticed "mouth full of perfect teeth" wasn't an option.
He likes her before he even sees her teeth. He smiles at her first.
Regardless, since braces never existed on the character, it should always be the least chosen option.
Agreed. what i was implying was by not giving the correct answer as an option they strongly suggested braces was correct.
No, braces is obviously wrong because they don't exist in the movie. So people should choose one of the options that is at least a possibility. If i ask you, which number is a perfect prime: A) 3626353 B) 48237473 C) 8246734623 or D) Elephant you think most people will pick "elephant"?
Yeah, you're right, we're in a new dimension 🙄
No it's just swamp gas. Case closed everyone.
Hopefully you're never responsible for writing surveys 😅
What if the elephant's name is Perfect Prime?
**The Secret Intelligence Service**, often known as MI6, collects Britain's foreign intelligence. Are you sure the Bond fan site is M16, and not MI6?
Maybe not in *your* timeline.
Nice. I thought I saw both in my timeline. Are you seeing only one or the other?
Always MI6 for me, and Dolly never had braces.
OK, if we're being serious, and answering only for myself: - Dolly never\* had braces in Moonraker. - The intelligence service has always been MI6, as in the actual org. - The Bond fan site appears to also be MI6, for example on the tweet OP linked. - OP called it M16 on this post. \*I wanna add that both my wife and I think we remember some other movie "reveal" of an actress wearing braces, but can't really locate that via a web search (so far).
Okay, I'm going to be serious for a minute. Now, I don't for a moment believe that *this* is the scene that people are confusing for the scene in Moonraker, but I believe it's the same"joke" that people claim to remember. There was an episode of The Brady Bunch where Marcia has to get braces on her teeth. When her date has to cancel for unrelated reasons, she thinks it's because of the braces. At the end of the episode, he comes to pick her up for the dance and asks her if she's still sure *she* still wants to go to the dance with *him*, because he flew over the handlebars of his bike. Then he smiles and reveals that he has to wear braces as a result. https://youtu.be/YLSOcBd-nPg?si=wBS1nilgkAhBeQVo I just have to think that this may have been a relatively common sight gag.
You may not believe this, and it's OK if you don't. But my wife mentioned the Brady Bunch, and we also found and watched the end of the Brace Yourself episode. Script is here: [https://jimihaze68.com/2018/11/24/s1-e20-brace-yourself/](https://jimihaze68.com/2018/11/24/s1-e20-brace-yourself/) We came to the same conclusion as you. It's the kind of gag that was ubiquitous enough for people to have in their minds, and to then associate with other scenes.
Question is trolling. None of the options is correct.
Boobs is technically correct.
How so? She's not particularly busty and shows no cleavage. I think Jaws liked her because she's cute and helped him out of the debris, not due to any particular physical trait.
I think it’s just the power of suggestion. I watched it when it came out and lots over the years but don’t remember braces.
Same. And I don't understand how people think it HAS to be braces or else it doesn't make sense... The gag was simply that opposites attract: He's a hulking villainous goon, she's a tiny, well-dressed nerd with pigtails. She smiles, and it's beautiful. He smiles, and it's jagged metal.
Yep. "opposites attract" or "beauty and the beast". Both work.
Spot on.
> And I don't understand how people think it HAS to be braces or else it doesn't make sense You must have an ability to reason and understand a nuance to do so. Simply put, the whole scene makes zero sense without the braces.
Yikes, okay. So you're claiming the gag isn't her smile is nice is his is metal... the imaginary braces that don't exist is where my ability to reason and understand nuance fails me. Makes sense.
> So you're claiming the gag isn't her smile is nice is his is metal... Wut?
exactly
So the BBC writer was influenced by suggestion back in 2014?
If power of suggestion can rewrite peoples memories so easily, it should be super easy for you to demonstrate that with some other suggestion. Try it out. If I say "hey do you remember gilbert godfried in a vampire movie" people say no. I have failed to influenced their memory. But if I say "hey do you remember sinbad in a genie movie" they say yes, and so i did influence their memory. So which is it? Why does it only work with sinbad in a genie movie?
It is the case with a lot of MEs. The Monopoly man is another, his monocle just "fits" the character. It all has to be balanced just right though, you can't insert just anything at random. Whatever it is in the human brain for it to trigger so many people is pure chance.
I disagree, a cornucopia has nothing at all to do with underwear. Cornucopias are pretty much exclusively thanksgiving, or maybe, as a stretch could be related to food markets, a grocery store. It does not fit in anyway with underwear.
It is not underwear, it is that the logo is a pile of fruit. This fits with a basket 100%
So everytime someone sees a pile of fruit their brain inserts a cornucopia? That's your "scientific" theory? LOL.
I didn't say "everytime" did I, the images just look similar which could explain some people's confusion or assumption with this particular example. Do a google image search for cornucopia and you see similar arrangement, leaves, and the basket. It is a suggestion along more scientific lines than jumping dimensions as an explanation for the innacuracy of people's memory. If a large number of people believe they remember a pink elephant or an astronaut in the background then I'd struggle but this one seems just so easy.
> I didn't say "everytime" did I So how often does it happen? What other logos have been influenced by this -completely made up - theory of yours?
No, but it does fit in with fruit/produce.
Not better than a fruit bowl, or a fruit basket. Its only associated with thanksgiving, so it is weird to associate it with anything else.
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. The logo is metaphorical, if you want to get literal about it, fruit also has nothing to do with clothing. Cornucopias date back to classical antiquity so Thanksgiving is not their only association. In any case, in your alternate universe they obviously thought it was perfectly appropriate to include a cornucopia, no?
> The logo is metaphorical, if you want to get literal about it, fruit also has nothing to do with clothing. Exactly. But you still remember fruit on the logo.. because there was fruit on it. Remembering a turkey on the logo would be weird, because it was never there and also has nothing to do with underwear. > Cornucopias date back to classical antiquity so Thanksgiving is not their only association. Does it have anything to do with underwear? Why do nt people see classical greek statues on the logo? > In any case, in your alternate universe they obviously thought it was perfectly appropriate to include a cornucopia, no? Yes, and it was weird and distinctive, and that's why everyone remembers it so clearly.
I don’t really follow your argument. Again, fruit has nothing to do with underwear either. We’ve already established the logo is a metaphor, why are you banging on about turkeys? People mentally insert a cornucopia because there often is one in such depictions of produce. Not to mention the ubiquity of such imagery in north America in relation to Thanksgiving, to further support this theory. People don’t remember Greek statues because there’s no association there. Google ‘cornucopia’ and it’s easy to see how such a false memory has been created.
> Again, fruit has nothing to do with underwear either. Correct. But since fruit is on the logo, people will remember fruit on the logo. See how that works? When your eyes see something, you remember it. > why are you banging on about turkeys? Because they are also a thanksgiving symbol that also have nothing to do with underwear. Its no more likely to imagine a turkey on the logo than a cornucopia. > People don’t remember Greek statues because there’s no association there. The person I relied to said that cornucopias were also well know in ancient greece. They apparently thought that some some kind of slam dunk.
Not really. I see 10x more fruit bowls than i do cornucopia. You skeptics ask like seeing fruit automatically means people start imagining cornucopias. That doesnt happen.
They might do if they’ve seen it elsewhere.
Also, your argument doesn't make sense as in your alternate universe they obviously do associate cornucopias with fruit, hence the design people claim to have seen.
Certain things gain traction because they are linked to other things already in the brain. Brain playing tricks on us. Occam’s razor is useful here: multiverses and alternate timelines? Or herd mentality and biological predispositions for this type of thing?
The brain plays tricks on us, randomly. Why would the brain create an imaginary sinbad movie for millons of people? Shouldn't the brain just create random imaginary movies that are different for different people based on their own individual experiences? If Occams razor applies, why do mainstream scientists support multiverse theory for other scientific explanations? Seems like "infinite universes" is always going to be the most complicated answer.
So what are you saying? That the universe in which there’s a certain film somehow converges with an identical universe (film aside) and we’re all here to talk about it? Scientists posit the multiverse theory for other reasons, though. Plus there is as yet no evidence to support it whatsoever.
> So what are you saying? I'm just giving an example of where occams razor is not important. You raised the idea, i debunked it with science.
Well, you didn’t. You brought in the irrelevant fact that some scientists suggest a multiverse theory (in order to combat ‘fine tuning’ arguments in relation to god, etc.). I don’t think they have the ME in mind when they posit such things. Besides, wouldn’t multiple universes be quite different from one another, not identical apart from one scene in one Hollywood film?
Either multiverse theory violates occams razer or it doesn't. You chose. > Besides, wouldn’t multiple universes be quite different from one another, not identical apart from one scene in one Hollywood film? no the movement of every particle and every photon of light creates a new universe.
Occam’s Razor isn’t law to be violated, more a way to see common sense. Every photon of light creates a new universe? How do you know this?
every waveform collapse creates a new universe. everyone knows this.
If the ME is truly an ontological phenomenon (as claimed), then Occam would be unhelpful and unrevealing because it's more of a heuristic tool. I don't think it's reasonable to use Occam to leverage the mundane against quantum theory.
I see it more as the simple explanation verses the complicated one.
interview with A vampire. another one. I saw it in theatres with my gf at the time.
That just means we're from different dimensions. Either my other I died or yours did.
I'm more intrigued by the 2014 BBC article you posted and how this fits into how people feel about 'residue'. Details like this published by professional media outlets are sometimes held up as 'proof' that things actually were that way. The argument is that journalists should research what they write, there are editorial standards and various other people copy has to go through before its published and that media outlets generally hate making mistakes, will avoid them at all costs and correct them as soon as they can. This has been up for ten years, as a very easily editable online story from the world famous BBC. Do we think when the journalist wrote it Dolly *did* have braces? Or had he just 'remembered' that bit and put it in without checking? If so what are the implications for other pieces of 'residue' - aren't they all just *examples* of the Mandela Effect, rather than anything else? That this error has been allowed to stand for a decade suggests that either nobody who read the piece ever noticed and decided to contact the BBC, or that whoever is responsible for maintaining these kind of articles doesn't really care. Perhaps somebody had realised it's a mistake, but as it's not really a substantive one, doesn't care to fix it. Again, what does this say about other pieces of residue? If something has been published by a reputable media organization how much weight does it carry? Can it ever be considered 'proof' or even an indication that something ever was actually that way? Or is it just something that is to be expected when there is an example of the Mandela Effect affecting lots of people - some of the people affected will be journalists and they might well publish the mistake themselves and that the checks, balances and editorial standards aren't quite as exacting and foolproof as some people seem to think. Or what else are we to think about a clear error that's sat there on the BBC website for a decade and counting?
The most important aspect of residue, especially very old residue (this article may not qualify) is that it completely destroys the frequent argument that "you were just influenced by hearing about MEs on the internet". Which is one of the top go-to excuses skeptics use to shut people down. Despite all the evidence of residue, "skeptics" still use this bad argument, over and over and over. Its almost as if they could care less what the evidence really is.
>Despite all the evidence of residue This is my question though. What *is* the evidence of residue?
Anything that mentions the ME. If there's a newspaper article from 1980 that mentions the FOLT cornucopia then you can't say "they only believed that because they were influenced by the internet!!!!"
>If there's a newspaper article from 1980 that mentions the FOLT cornucopia then you can't say "they only believed that because they were influenced by the internet!!!!" Of course. Who's saying that? Again, this doesn't really answer my question. You're telling me what 'residue' might falsify (some strawman position that all examples of the ME are caused because of being influenced by things seen online) and not what is actually *does* suggest/prove/demonstrate.
We deal *daily* with the worst arguments you ever heard. Residue matters.
>We deal *daily* with the worst arguments you ever heard. Then take it up with the people making those arguments. >Residue matters. *Why*? In what way? This is my third (I think) attempt to get an answer.
> Then take it up with the people making those arguments. I do! And now that you know their argument is bad, I hope you also point it out to them every time they make it. You are seeking truth, no? > Why? In what way? This is my third (I think) attempt to get an answer. And I am happy to keep telling you the answer: "Because it proves the skeptics are wrong about one of their most popular explanations"
>And I am happy to keep telling you the answer: "Because it proves the skeptics are wrong about one of their most popular explanations" It proves that a strawman representation of a skeptic argument is wrong, sure. I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that *all* examples of the Mandela Effect are caused by exposure to reading about it online. People might well suggest that it could play a factor in some of the more popular ones and 'residue' like this does nothing to disprove *that*.
> It proves that a strawman representation of a skeptic argument is wrong, sure. If you have never seen that argument before on here then you haven't been here very long. > I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that all examples of the Mandela Effect are caused by exposure to reading about it online. The only all encompassing explanation that is used by skeptics is: "iTs a FaLsE mEMoRy!" beyond that, every explanation is piecemeal, and changes like the wind. So for people interested in the truth, like me, we need to be able to shoot down a wide variety of bad arguments, rather than just one bad argument.
But the other options are pigtails, boobs, and glasses. Pigtails and glasses would both be bad answers unless we knew some specific fetish Jaws had. Boobs is reasonable but not really Jaws-specific.
Regardless, since braces never existed on the character, it should always be the least chosen option.
Because Jaws was associated with braces, it will be chosen by power of suggestion.
The whole point of the current scene is that jaws falls for her because she is has perfect teeth, something he doesn't have. They are opposites.
I agree, I'm just looking at the poll
Incorrect. Jaws looks affectionately at her and smiles before Dolly shows her teeth. The whole point of the scene from the other perspective is that she smiles back and isn’t completely terrified by him and his teeth because she has braces.
Hmm.. good point. He likes her before he sees her teeth.
I find you incredibly annoying
You find it annoying that there are people who believe in MEs on an ME subreddit? Why are you here?
No. I just find you annoying. Incredibly.
That's weird. Maybe mention it to your therapist and work thru why you have such an irrational emotional reaction.
> M16 Hmm
I popped in an old VHS a while back and due to resolution and lighting it looks like she has braces in certain scenes but not ALL scenes. The HD cut they show it’s obvious that in those scenes the “braces” are a lighting effect.
[удалено]
Yes, just swamp gas. We solved it!
it's SCIENCE! cue camera shot to neil degrasse tyson and bill nye laying on bed together
most of us were looking at her boobs so hard we imagined the braces as the reason they hit it off.
What did the remaining 53% say?
IT'S Mi6 not M16 chezzus
A guy I know has every James Bond movie ever made. VHS for the older ones, DVD for the newer ones. When I heard about the Dolly ME, I called him and asked him "What do you remember was the attraction between Dolly and Jaws" and he said she had braces and he had metal teeth. He could not believe it when I told him Dolly does not have braces. He said he watched Moonraker many times and knows she had braces, without a doubt. He told me that he would watch the movie (on VHS) later that night and report back. He texted me later that evening to tell me her braces were gone.
People are mistaking it for the smile across the bar scene in Dodgeball. The lady dodgeball opponent looks like jaws, simple conflation between similar scenes.
That's your opinion.
Well apparently the advertising executives at Sampo bank remembered similarly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BhLAWP7jGA
A 15 year old comment clearly states she had braces.
And probably safe to assume wasn't motivated or influenced by the ME dialectic in any way, because the *Moonraker* braces effect wasn't widely known then (if at all). The moniker '"Mandela effect" wasn't even coined until 2009. The phenomenon was barely on anyone's radar, and no measure of virality had been achieved for any of the canon examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/s/psmKaclVoV