Showing what something is and has always been does not disprove a Mandela effect
Oftentimes in this sub, people aim to disprove a Mandela effect by showing proudly the “known publicly accepted fact” relative to that ME.
For example, this applauded post showing an old Fruit of The Loom t-shirt without the cornucopia in the logo, and saying tranquilly that ME here is therefore just “mental”: https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/1shpp01/fruit_of_the_loom_proof/
Yet a Mandela effect being a different (false, for skeptics) memory of what has always been, then simply showing what has always been cannot, by definition, be a disproof. There is obvious circularity going on here. At most, you’re implicitly showing that we haven’t found any approved physical residue of a supposed “previous” state of a thing, but that is not the point you want to make here.
And even in response to those who claim that something has changed, then simply showing the actual state & history of a thing cannot be a disproof, because, as it happens, the change is claimed to be retroactive. This is indeed how the Mandela effect works: it starts from an alternate memory, which then sometimes triggers a claim that reality has retroactively changed (because the memory is so vivid, has indirect memories associated with it, etc), or simply triggers the less excentric search for memory-based explanations.
So for these reasons, I think the actual state & history of things really has to be taken for granted in our forum, i.e. in the context of a long-term Mandela effect discussion.
And the interesting debate should rather be on what causes the Mandela effect, whether memory-based or paranormal reason.
What do you think ?