Why would you pad only one of the 8s?

Good argument.

Sure there are plenty of non-scientists who defer and don’t question because they assume the scientists are right, but the problem is that many of people questioning established science these days barely understand the basic concepts.

What is the “easily explainable and logical conclusion” if not the one put forth in this video?

I love alternate theories, but they still have to stand up to scrutiny. Claiming it’s suspicious just because it’s “science” is pretty dumb.

I hadn’t seen this video or heard of Eratosthenes’ experiment until now. The thing is I can do this experiment myself to verify it if I want to. Heck, as a former architect who’s had to do countless sun studies, I can basically do it in my head right now (of course, I’d bust out a pencil and paper or AutoCAD if it seemed the slightest bit fishy).

I like knowing the truth and how things work, and would be very interested if you could prove either that this experiment is wrong or that this historical figure was made up, but simply an “apparently this is fake” from a stranger on the internet holds no weight with me.

I’ll take your reluctance to provide your verification as a concession though. Thanks.

Great! Get back to me when you’re done verifying this and I’ll take you seriously.

So while scientists have been verifying this stuff for thousands of years, you’re going to go with “apparently they made it up” without even verifying it?

Cue Peewee’s “I meant to do that!”

The winner tends to be the one with the most goals. Not just the last one.

Think of a military operation. The soldiers on the beach at Normandy have no idea what the generals are planning or actually doing. And the generals have no direct control over how the soldiers on the beach engage, fight, and deal with their job.

What if there aren’t actually any generals?

I mean, if you never see them, and never actually get any orders from them, and no battles are ever won, you have to start to wonder if you’re just a bunch of random idiots on a beach just talking about generals.

That doesn’t explain anything.

The weak also appear weak.

Well that’s going to be a disappointment.

Except that this plan has already dropped a dozen eggs, and at some point, you have to wonder if trying to make eggs is pointless.

The military doesn’t act on unsubstantiated claims of crimes or drops from anonymous internet users.

Why would anyone be in panic mode when their enemy is still “waiting YEARS” for results?

We only need to get up just one more time than we are knocked down in life.

In general that’s a heathy attitude, but certainly sounds different than:

"We're gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you'll say, 'Please, please. It's too much winning. We can't take it anymore. Mr. President, it's too much.' ”

Lol. If you have evidence of something, why not just use it for a case you can win?

Entering irrelevant evidence and losing cases isn’t a good strategy.

It’s pretty amazing that even as your instinct tells you that the narrative that this is fake is wrong, you just neverstopbelieving.

I like to stick postage stamps to the side of my computer when I send emails.

I love how this person researched this by reading the “lucky” words in a foreign language version, when there is an option to read it in 23 different languages including english.

Edit: the document this article is based on has no mention of QR codes, atms, banks, or currencies, and nothing about vaccines being or becoming mandatory.

It seems to be about standardizing vaccine status documentation across the EU. Kind of like how we all get the same CDC card across the US.

Young guy looks kind of like old man but not at all like the younger version of that old man. 🤔

Lol. Is your estranged daughter also in her mid-40s?

A third option here is that there is such a thing as conspiracy theorists who base their theories on incomplete or incorrect information, and that many people are using the terms to mean just that.

Ok, if we’re using USDA classifications for humans and human-based foods, we can probably agree that something can be either organic (unmodified) or not organic (modified).

What do you think the dr/scientist/woman in this video means when she refers to milk as being just 80% inorganic.

I’m betting it’s the 80% H2O content, but I’d love to hear your thoughts.

So this actor/double/clone is doing all that ”stupid crap” to prove a point?

I mean I don’t see the people who thought they were voting for Biden complaining.

Organic when used to refer to label food products does not mean the same as organic when used in chemistry.

Inorganic is a chemistry term, and a food product would just be referred to as not being organic (unless it literally is entirely non-carbon-based).