Department of Inconvenient Truths
Indicium Parilis Facultas ne Necessarius Veritas

Warp in Spacetime, space.com photo.

I am out of my league here. This isn’t a writing that professes in any way, shape or form to know what I am actually talking about. I don’t know the maths, I don’t know the physics involved to give anywhere near a complete and intelligent answer to the questions I propose. What I am doing is providing my observations and questions (and maybe an idea or two that hasn’t yet been touched on in the media I’ve studied) from the abundance of documents/books I’ve read and documentaries I’ve watched. I am also relieving myself of this burden that’s been in my head for weeks now. Thinking and rethinking the possibilities and problems. By writing this all down (and doing so on my blog was just a way to keep track of it in the future for my own use), I am able to get a better idea of where I am heading with this.

To get back on track, here’s a list of things that I am currently taking as truths, if you don’t already know these things, I suggest you looked into it more deeply AND you’re not the target for this paper:

• E=MC^2 (This “general” relativity equation gives us a few things, such as:)
• Note the term “relative”, this matters when discussing….
• Time and Space are directly tied together, henceforth stated as “Space-Time”. Everything is relative to their respective “times” because:
• Time isn’t a constant across the universe. Because of what E=MC^2 posits, it’s impossible to have the same “time” in all locations of the universe, in fact, time actually tallies itself differently on Earth, which has been proven through the use of experiments at different altitudes.
• Einstein’s general theory of relatively opened up a multitude of other avenues (and questions) to explore, and answer (at some point) creating a stir after it’s original introduction to the world, including….
• Schwarzschild’s Singularity, which eventually led to the discussion of….
• Black Holes, which were later proven by Hawking and Penrose.
• Einstein’s “Special” relativity.
• Mass bends light.
• (There’s lots more to add here, I am just including the three above for the purpose of getting started with this thought process)

The three items above will lend a little background to a couple of things I want to present, but first, I want to mention a piece of science-fiction, to which we all know the creators of science-fiction typically base some of their work on science-fact.

Stargate and their addressing system. Yes, the movie that brought us the television shows. Why won’t it work (as explained in the show)? Because of the first three things above. While using some of the work of Einstein and the general theory of relativity to make it more believable for us, digging deeper into astrophysics, there must be a must broader explanation than what the audience was given. If you recall the “ah ha!” moment from the movie, Dr. Daniel Jackson (James Spader) describes the method to find a location to a given place (in space) and that it takes six points of origin, plus to travel to that location, you need a seventh point, the starting location of your voyage. Based on Einstein’s, Schwarzschild’s, Penrose and Hawking’s (among many, many others) work, we know that to be false. Why? Because we must also calculate where that object is traveling (leading the target). Now, let’s give a little leeway to the writers on this one, they’re technically NOT giving exact coordinates for the destination or starting point, they’re representing where the destination is by symbol, without giving the audience the exact location (assuming the gates can do the calculations perhaps). My point is this:

Through the theory of general relativity, and the subsequent theories that are derived from it, we know that mass bends light and therefore, anything we observe in the universe has the potential to have a different set of coordinates because of the effects of space-time by mass and gravity. Also, because of the time that has passed since that light was produced (billions of years) and the constant shifting of objects, that particular object has moved locations in the universe since that light was originally produced. Not only is it in a different location than what we observe, the changes to the new location would need to be calculated based on all objects that have an effect on the light being bent a number of times over the billions of years it’s taken to arrive at our location. In other words, *IF* it were possible today to physically move in the known universe from point A to point B (that are separated by billions of miles) almost instantly, if one were simply to take locations at face value, ie. “planet 1 of star system X is located at coordinates XYX….”, if we pulled the trigger and in a blink of an eye arrive at planet 1, it would no longer be there, in fact, it would have traveled a vast distance away from where we witnessed it from Earth. What’s more, we would need to differentiate which objects could possibly cause a shift of light over that vast distance, which increases the potential objects exponentially, which at this point in our technological evolution (based on my extensive experience with computer technology) I would have to guess that it’s currently impossible to simulate everything involved to calculate all of the movements.  NOTE: I must give credit to some of our science fiction writers who undoubtedly thought of something similar to this because if you pay attention during some of their operations on their flight decks, they actually use the phrase “make calculations for jumping to _______”. 

Now, I know I can’t be the only person that’s come up with this. After listening to an abundance of podcasts with Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Michio Kaku, reading docs, books and watching documentaries, no one has really mentioned this and I want to know more. I have seen some similar questions being asked online, with almost cookie-cutter responses (to some degree), but not as precisely as I would have liked. Even when the questions are asked, many times the enormity is left out of either the question or the answer.

We can take into consideration “leading the target”, whereby we observe the star on Date X and then later measure it after a given amount of time on Date Y, use that to estimate the travel to that distant system, point and shoot. It’s still a guess. Why? Again, we fall back to 1-3 above. Not only do these large mass objects have an effect on the light traveling TO us, they also have an effect on us and our equipment traveling toward our destination. Below, you will see the idea of shorter initial distance calculations, which would lessen the “leading the target” variances.

Our culture doesn’t like to use the phrase, “….it’s impossible to figure out.” I don’t like using that phrase for perhaps a different set of reasons, which primarily revolve around, “….I may be smart, but I know there’s a ton of more intelligent people in the world than I.” And hope that someone like Neil and Michio have the abilities to see through this problem and come to a resolution. To travel there? Well, we need to start somewhere and frankly, because the technology isn’t there to create the drive system to make it happen, the very least we can do is to try and come up with the methodology to navigate the way for when the transportation is available, I mean, math can happen well in advance of new technology, such as faster-than-light propulsion, in this case, we have enough info to get started on the nav.

Quantum computers could resolve this issue. If they’re everything they’re cracked up to be, this might be a great simulation to begin developing to see how they handle the calculations needed to make the leap.

Even if we came up with a method to develop an artificial worm hole, we would still need to come up with the destination address in which to punch in to the worm hole creation device.

Now, one way around this would be to calculate shorter waypoints from Point A to Point B, making a series of jumps from the closest star to the next, along our route (Waypoint A.1, A.2, A.3, etc. until you reach Point B). This would cut the initial calculation time down significantly by eliminating a vast number of objects that could not effect each individual (and smaller) leg of the journey, which may be the easiest way (for now) to make it happen. The end destination would not be known until we nearly reach the end of the journey. Such is the way of human kind. We didn’t know how to get the west coast until Lewis and Clark made the final choice of routes over the Sierra Nevada Range. Hard to imagine though, using the basis of the same type of exploration-navigation to get to a distant star system that Lewis and Clark used to get from the east coast of the United States to the west coast, one leg at a time. Even then, the onboard computer system would have to have other abilities, such as the ability to see the universe between the current location of our transport and the final destination, understand where that location is in relation to the end destination, in order to make the calculations for the next leg.

Shew. That’s a lot to think about. Why do I think of this stuff? I have no idea. But like I said above, I had to write it down – have an outlet, otherwise, I think it may have driven me half a bubble off level.

The following is the full text of an opinion piece written by climate activist and energy expert Michael Shellenberger which was originally published by Forbes but pulled a few hours later. Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner, told The Daily Wire in a statement hours after Forbes deactivated the piece, “I am grateful that Forbes has been so committed to publishing a range of viewpoints, including ones that challenge the conventional wisdom, and was thus disappointed my editors removed my piece from the web site. I believe Forbes is an important outlet for broadening environmental journalism beyond the overwhelmingly alarmist approach taken by most reporters, and look forward to contributing heterodoxical pieces on energy and the environment in the future.”

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations including Britain, Germany and France since the mid-seventies
• Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
• We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.

In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
• The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
• 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year, after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism, are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.

Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. 

***

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins, June 30, 2020). He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over five million times.

My father passed away in 1998. Brian Keith’s Wiki is showing him as dying in 1997, self inflicted gunshot wound.

Prior to Brian Keith starring in Hardcastle and McCormick, circa 1985 or so, my father made a statement out of the blue one day, while “Family Affair” was on the television in the house “…Brian Keith committed suicide with a gun.” I can remember that I was very young and those are my father’s exact words. I cannot remember exactly how old I was or exactly when dad said such, but I do remember it was prior to the days of Hardcastle and McCormick.

Is this another case of the berenst#inbears problem? Well before either the berenst#inbears or mandele effect existed?

Mengele Effect

Mandela Effect

The Berenst#in Bears Problem

You can’t imagine the excitement I felt when I watched this week’s episode of the X-Files. Once I figured out the context of the script, my mind went into overload. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything on prime time or in a movie that dealt with the Berenst#in Bears Problem (aka Mengele Effect, Mandela Effect). Sure, there’s books on the subject. And maybe, there just may be a movie out there that deals with this, but I haven’t seen it. To see it on a prime time drama, especially one of my all time favs, and this being a conspiracy theory (or an unexplained phenomenon) that I truly believe in (one of the very few), really set me back.

Sure, the episode, when considered with all X-Files episode, probably sucked. It was full of cheesy alien special effects, circa 1960’s television. But the subject matter, even though they took a light-hearted approach (or did they? with Skinner’s question at the end) to the subject matter, it made it into the mainstream.

Perhaps you’ve landed here, because of that episode!

One thing they could have added, was a mention of the actual Berenst#in Bears Problem, that would have been icing on the cake!

And for those sites referring to this episode as “The funniest” X-Files episode, shame on you! We should not be promoting such things! The X-Files should NEVER be considered “funny”. Sure, there may be some funny things that occur here and there, but to consider an entire episode as “FUNNY”???? The writers have lost their f’in minds! Stop that!

But alas, at least it made it into the minds of some of the average people that don’t normally believe in such things.

WTF? This “band” just popped into my life. “Voice of a Generation” was how it was referred. Really? WTF is Cascada I asked, researched, found and realized yet another thing that just “happened”, or has been happening, for like a long time…..

#berenst#inbears

So now we have Ion Engines? This just magically occurred in my universe. Three years ago, I read an article about an engine some lay-person had built that was being “analyzed by NASA” and they “could not dispute” the output of this “Ion Driven Engine”. How this new invention would revolutionize space travel, once they got a handle on it and did the work on reverse engineering it.

There’s never been a single mention that I recall reading, and I read everything that comes across the news concerning big physics and space travel announcements, that had anything to do with satellites having Ion Engines as far back as 1999 or 2001, which is referred to in this article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/news/a28754/new-ion-thruster-breaks-records-power-thrust/?src=socialflowFB

Ion thrusters already have a proven track record in space, most notably on the Deep Space 1 craft that flew by the asteroid Braille and the comet Borrelly in 1999 and 2001, respectively, becoming the first spacecraft to rely primarily on ion propulsion. The Dawn spacecraft used ion propulsion to become the first spacecraft to orbit two celestial bodies: the large asteroid Vesta in 2011 and the dwarf planet Ceres in 2015, where the spacecraft is still at work today. In addition, more than 100 communications satellites use small ion thrusters to correct their orbital positions.

Damn those Pesky Berenst#in Bears!

On August 17 2017, there was an observed collision of stars that caused a “ripple effect” of space/time due to gravitational wave fluctuations. Could this be the cause of variations in the observed Universe? Could this be the cause of the “Berenst#in” Bears problem?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/gravitational-waves-discovered-neutron-stars-pictures-science/

Around 130 million years ago, two dead stars violently collided and set off a sequence of events that, over the last two months, have whipped astronomers on Earth into an absolute frenzy.

At press conferences held across continents, scientists today announced the first detection of gravitational waves created by two neutron starssmashing into each other.

First theorized by Albert Einstein in 1916, gravitational waves are kinks or distortions in the fabric of space-time caused by extremely violent cosmic events. Until now, all confirmed detections involved a deadly dance between two black holes, which leave no visible signature on the sky.

There’s a problem that’s been around for a very long time that I feel we’re on the cusp of it coming to fruition. I’ve been involved, in one way or another, in various “privacy” oriented websites for going on two decades. I’ve been affiliated with individuals and organizations that have known for a very long time about the issues just being presented to the general population by wikileaks in regards to the CIA’s ability (along with the NSA) to listen in on just about anything they choose. No one really listened to us, not in vast numbers. Only those with the *feeling* that it could happen, those on the “fringe”. Now, it’s out and it’s making headlines (it was released by wikileaks today). Most all of this is old news to me and many of my friends. We’re not shocked, we’re not surprised. Yes, we could say “I TOLD YOU SO”, and we would be correct. For years, we’ve talked about the ignorant masses (no slight intended, look up the definition of “ignorant”) going about their daily lives without a care in the world when it came to stuff like this. We’ve provided alternative sources of communications to mask your identities in some shape or form (Tor and www.cotse.net), but not many people listened to us. Are you worried about the smart TVs listening in on your daily conversations? Do you care if your refrigerator (Internet of Things) spies on you? Of course not. You could give a shit less. And that, is by design. I am not going to go into it much further than that, but your sports television, your reality t.v. and your prime time dramas, coupled with piss poor public education have all led the masses to be dulled down to the point of being controlled by the powers-that-be, and that should hit you right in the face. What once was a conspiratorial theory on the fringe of society was just proven by wikileaks to be 100% true, if by way of circumstantial evidence.

The crux of the issue is, if all of this is going on around us, how are those among us that really give a shit, going to communicate in an open manner befitting those that are supposedly living in a *free* society where debate and anti-government discourse was supposedly great for society in general? (If you don’t believe me, read the papers of our founding fathers where the First Amendment came from and it’s intent).

You, the individual without a care in the world about such things, don’t really matter in the grand scheme. You are a pawn. Who matters are those of us that will make a difference, those that will fight for “freedom” (whatever the hell that really is) and liberty (non-existent idea these days).

The government controls you. You’ve become complacent. You like your luxuries. You want a warm bed, easy to obtain food, great entertainment spewing forth from the idiot box. You want to take your wife and kids out on a 7 day vacation where they can play in polluted waters, around radiation infused fish, while being further inundated with more mind control by fuzzy characters with big floppy feet, singing two syllable words to the marching beat of a socialist army of idiots. And you’re just fine with that. You don’t want to pay health care insurance premiums. You worked for 20 years and your company offered you a pension and free healthcare for life and there’s nothing wrong with that! If the company goes into bankruptcy, it’s the gummints problem! They should bail out your healthcare plan! You worked! You’re owed something!

You lazy bastards need to get off of your asses and take care of yourselves and you shoulda done it 20 or more years ago. But no, you were too ignorant to plan ahead.

Ant and the grasshopper, all over again.

Back to my point.

Facebook is compromised. It is no longer a valid way of communicating. They’re censoring posts by way of labeling them “disputed”. “Disputed” doesn’t mean “fake”. It means that something is being considered as being untruthful, considered being the operative word. Who is doing the disputing? Considering the left leaning tendencies of Facebook proper, if something isn’t in their line of reasoning, it is disputed. Slanted. Tainted. For years, our information that we put out concerning the Three Letter Agencies was “disputed”. We were called kooks. Now that it’s been realized and released? Vindication. However, Facebook controls communications. True, there’s other avenues to communicate (which could also be censored), however, the ignorant masses, once again, have been controlled by the shiny object dangled before them by their masters. Stay on Facebook. That’s all you need.

Blogs were once a thing, there’s still a lot of them out there, but the growth has slowed. There are other avenues, but not nearly as wide spread as Facebook. And of course, Facebook and their government counterparts know this and they’re exploiting you, your data and advertisers because of it. And you’re letting it happen.

I am not. I am here, on my blog, explaining something, once again, that will come to light in another 15 or 20 years.

Puppets. That’s what society has become. 360 million puppets.

Some of you may have read my “Berenst#in Bears” problem post. On Facebook, I had more interesting discussions, including my inability to remember former U.S. House of Representative’s former Speaker Dennis Hastert. I should, because I am a news junkie and somewhat of a politics follower, be able to recall a Speaker of the House, I mean, I know the rest of them…. So why not Hastert?

Well, in an interesting twist…. his portrait has gone missing in the House…

http://www.politico.com/blogs/the-gavel/2015/11/dennis-hastert-portrait-speaker-215460?cmpid=sf#ixzz3qNbi5bjq

I have no theory for this, it is what it is.

You’re about to enter one of the weirder sides of my research.

As much as I detest the fact that just about everything I write about I feel the need (or the need is really there) to explain it, I am not going to go into much detail about the history involved in this particular category of this blog. I will give it a brief paragraph of explanation, the rest, follow the links and learn more about it elsewhere. My primary reason for doing it this way, I don’t want to fall into a rabbit hole that has absolutely no potential what-so-ever (at least that can be perceived by me) to ever be fully vetted. This is something you either accept or throw out as garbage. I simply accept it to be true, based on observation and my own memories.

The “Berenst#in Bears Problem” stems from a change in historical documentation of particular events. In my mind, I recall the cartoon as being titled “Berentein Bears”, in other people’s minds and in all “official” documentation, the title is “Berenstain Bears”. One could easily dismiss this as being a bad memory function for some of us, if there wasn’t other such occurrences during our lifetimes that stand out as memory anomalies. There are many theories on how this occurred and many other recollections that are sworn to be “true”, but are in fact, completely wrong, based on current historical documentation. Furthermore, once you read into this and get a better understanding, this document itself will become useless at some point in time because the document will change when the phenomenon occurs again in the future, which in turn, will change history and thus, anything that is documented in this universe will be changed accordingly, instantaneously, without anyone really knowing, and if the author of said document travels to the different universe, their recollection will be of the original document, but if that author doesn’t move to the different universe, their memories will be changed. Whew. Confusing as hell. It’s even harder to put it on paper.

Here’s a good starting point for more information:   http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/

Now, for my first example.

This is a memory that I recall as vividly as possible, considering the amount of time that has passed. This memory is as clear to me as any other memory from the same era (1970s).

When I was a kid, there’s various T.V. shows that stand out in my mind as being those that my father and I used to watch together. Very strong memories in deed. First, “CHiPs” comes to mind, as does “Sanford and Son” and “Chico and the Man”. I say this without researching to find out if any details that I recall are different than what’s been documented. That being the case, I will continue to not go to IMDB and do any research, so if you want to sit down and chat with me some day, at least for these three shows, we can do so and you can research as you pick my brain and then we can analyze what, if anything, is different in my mind from that which is documented or that you remember.

I bring the above mentioned shows to your attention because I want to use those as indicators for memory recollection of the time period. During this time period, there were several other shows I used to watch, such as “Adam 12”, “The Six Million Dollar Man”, “Emergency”, “Baa Baa Blacksheep” and the point of this particular example, “High Sierra”. If you do an IMDB search of “High Sierra”, in this particular universe, you *should* find that “High Sierra” was a Robert Conrad show in the mid 1990s. I’ll go check right now to make sure….. and sure enough, there’s a listing for it right here. The problem is, that’s 1995, not 1975’ish. I recall watching this show with my dad, in the “t.v. room” of our house (the house he built). I recall the t.v. as it sat in the corner of the room, the couches, the snacks we had, some parts of the show, etc. And I know, beyond any doubt, that I did not watch this show in the 1990s, which is a full 20 years from when I watched the show. I know that Robert Conrad starred in the 70s version, as he is listed as being the star of the 90s version. There’s no other mention of a “High Sierra” t.v. show previous to or in addition to the 1990s listed version, and if you check out Robert Conrad’s IMDB listing, there’s no other “High Sierra” listed there either.

EDIT: I want to explain this slightly. Yes, memories can be wrong, yes, especially with simple things or things we don’t think about on an every day basis, things can slip our minds… however, in this case, I grew up in the fire service and I learned rope-rescue, started with rappelling with friends as a 12 year old kid, and furthered my fascination with ropes from within the fire service as I turned 16 years old. My fascination with ropes, rock climbing, etc. stems from my recollection of this TV show. High Sierra was why I got into ropes and the chance to learn how to do the things I saw them do on T.V. and I remember time and time again recalling the show, especially during the classes I took in the fire service from 1986 forward and well before learning about his “berenst#in bears” theory.

Folks, I am not the only one experiencing these things. There are many other people out there experiencing the same type of memory recollection failures. I’ll post other examples later. But again, I don’t want to fall into a rabbit hole and not have a ladder, so I am going to treat this as a little escape from reality from time to time. Stuff like this doesn’t happen without a reason.

There is no spoon.