But I digress

In some sense all knowledge is predicated on a series of small assumptions. At some point and on some level, you have to assume something to be true.

It is still detoxed in the blood stream, but not to the same degree.

Of note, autism wasn't really known as a thing during the early 20th Century, and correlation does not indicate causation. If we didn't see it before also still doesn't mean it was not there.

Nor did the Americas not exist until we discovered them

Sometimes the increasing rate at which something appears is just us becoming more able to accurately detect and diagnose something.

Also of note, Methyl Mercury and Thimerosal are not at all the same thing. It is akin to comparing CO2 to NO2

Simply because they look similar and both have bonded Oxygen molecules does not make them the same thing.

I don't wish entirely to take this to the table though, mainly since I am lacking easy ability to cite resources on my mobile device.

In a few days though once I get my laptop back I would gladly continue this discourse, if that is alright with you?

Unfortunately as aforementioned I cannot dig into this subject matter right now due to my laptop, of which I store most of my resources, is unavailable. I am willing to continue this conversation and discourse at a later time, but until then I'd just be providing argumentation without substantiation.

I will leave it on this note though, there *absolutely* was Autism before vaccines, including those with specific antiseptics

You are right, I just woke up a few minutes ago!

Good morning lads.

Nah, still more than willing to discuss it, but if I was doing it now it would only be through mobile.

That has not changed and will not for a few days.

Toshibas are utter crud anyways

I could make mention, for example, that it being a conspiracy of the AAP to push for such vaccines makes little sense as such vaccines are used internationally, with the affects having recorded benefit over time.

Hell, you don't even need to go that far back.

The Spanish Flu was pretty indicative of that sort of event in ant case.

On a tangent, the point I initially made about not detecting =/= not existing I don't think was read in the light I meant it to be. The point is this...

If you cannot detect something, it does not mean that such did not exist, merely that we did not have the means to determine or detect its existence

This has occurred all throughout history, including well before any present established governments.

If that itself is to be a conspiracy, it is one of Mesopotamian proportions

In fairness, if you do suspect that, feel free to let me know so I am not treading on it as much.

Clearly, the sun just closes its eye and takes a nap /s

Memes aside, it is an interesting question, and I suspect the FE Answer will be equally interesting.

I, personally, am somewhat curious about the origin of the conspiracy

I.e. if it was a total hoax that the Earth is a globe, when did that cover-up start and why?

Because, if I recall properly, it would have to at the least be before the Antarctic Expeditions

Which of course was well before NASA or even NACA was a thing

Regardless, I'll leave some air so hopefully someone can respond.

I don't wish to go on a tirade.

Interesting...

From what I have seen this far, "Flat Earth PhD" is a decent person to converse with, even if I disagree with his general conclusions.

I was able to have a nice conversation last night with him though.

If you scroll back to last night I am sure you can find it

I would generally concur.

I actually met Goodspaceguy, and one thing I can say about him is that he is quite civil and a decent person to converse with.

If you do not know who he is, feel free to Google 'em

Sure.

See you there.

Or Lounge

Yeah, let's head there

DM it to someone verified

Also, what on Earth is the "Stretchmark Effect?"

Additionally, you can see the moon before and after the eclipse, I don't understand what that point is for. It becomes a "black circle" because of the shadow it casts. Same reason why if you hold up an object in some kind of intense, directional light, you will find it exceedingly difficult to actually see the object beyond it being a black shape of some variation.

We can even do that ourselves to see such.

You certainly do, of course at a certain point it is obscured and becomes a "black circle," the sun tends to have that effect.

Even with us being further away, it can have a similar effect when we do something similar.

So, you could be lying for power, influence, and recognition?

How can I trust you?

It does that to reduce the likelihood of explosive decompression.

If you want to see why, look at the Comet.

Equalizing pressure is one of the huge things the aircraft needs to do, after all.

Pressurize to ~8000 feet

And keep exerting pressures minimized

Otherwise the aircraft fuselage can literally act as a bomb

Newer aircraft even have skin designed to tear away instead of giving at one instant, with the intent of maintaining some integrity of the airframe due to a catastrophic failure.

The lens does not fully fisheye however, as you can see by the lack of magnification (or in this case it would make things appear larger) and color gradient, any optical lense at a certain angle will start to refract colors into slightly different gradients, such is also true for window tinting.

Wrong chat?

I note, I am using the shadow in a very loose term.

More practically, it is indeed the moon is being "over-shadowed" (pun intended) by the Sun

@Wretch My point is that AAP is not an international group.

Instead being a national entity, with no incentive to incline other nations for the same

Who do you suspect does the same maneuvering in Africa, Asia, and the like?

So if the last person we should ever trust said it...why should we trust him?

The truth of the matter is that everyone has a conflict of interest.

Even you and I

If, for example, you were to find evidence of Vaccines working effectively and properly, you may be disinclined to present it.

Influence, reputation, and power all stem from the same thing after all

At a lot of that is based on perception

You don't need money to have a conflict of interest

In truth? Probably not.

People tend to like being at the seat of power, even if such is economically unviable

Of course the former can often follow the latter.

Careful with Ad Hominems, from what I gather they are not appreciated here.

I don't think you know the definition of an Ad Hominem, it is a personal attack, and a fallacy.

Are we really devolving to this degree of mud-slinging?

My point is, why should I trust you?

The point is that if we just take assertions of untrustworthiness at face value always

Nothing can be verified, and nothing is trustworthy

Assertions that do so, yes.

Facts require evidence contrary to the "official narrative"

Of which the main website you linked is not.

It, further, provides assertions without deeming it necessary to empirically and scientifically prove it.

Note, all of these sites have a conclusion derived from a non-scientific basis

You derive the evidence from the conclusion

That is utterly backwards

Incidentally, IIRC none of these even remotely approach peer reviewed or scientific

Says the kill?

What?

Do what?

Ever heard of smallpox?

Spanish Flu?

Polio?

If truly someone was trying to make a buck off faulty health elixirs, they could of done so far more effectively with what predicated vaccines

Which was not only vastly more expensive, but required monthly or weekly checks, maintenance, and upkeep

So whoever is trying to rip people off really is doing a poor job of it.

Additionally, if you wanted to do it even more