claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
In 1975, Elvis Presley gave a young blind girl $50,000 and a concert ticket - plus travel expenses - to every one of his upcoming shows. | Contradiction | If you're an Elvis Presley fan with a social media account, you've probably come across a story about an interaction between 'The King' and young blind fan. In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | [
"08957-proof-03-elvis-and-the-blind-girl.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, or H.R. 6666, would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter American homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 1, 2020, as U.S. federal leaders negotiated emergency proposals to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois introduced a proposal that would set aside $100 billion to help local agencies identify people who were exposed to the coronavirus without knowing it. Rush, a Democrat who represents much of Chicago's South Side, authored the so-called H.R. 6666 - COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act - a 646-word bill that would establish a new grant program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to which local clinics, hospitals, nonprofits, and schools could apply for funding. But soon after Rush introduced the legislation - a formality in Congressional lawmaking that precedes the committee-hearing process where federal leaders negotiate the specifics of legislation and decide whether it should advance for final votes - critics on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit began sharing posts describing how they interpreted Rush's legislation. While some of those interpretations suggested the legislation would allow grant recipients to prohibit any non-vaccinated persons into their facilities (Snopes fact-checked that claim here), other interpretations focused on what the legislation would mean for COVID-19 testing. People claimed H.R. 6666 would violate American's constitutional rights by allowing federally-administered testing groups to enter homes against owners' will in order to conduct COVID-19 testing and force people to take the tests, even if they didn't want to. Soon, those types of fears around H.R. 6666 morphed into exaggerated claims that the legislation would allow COVID-19 testing groups to 'enter your house, test and vaccinate you against your will and take your children,' as one Snopes reader said. Among the most popular claims were those made by anti-vaccine advocate, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who asked viewers in a live video stream on May 8 to share his read on the House bill. Buttar, a licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said in the video: Basically this act is to allow individuals to come into your house and if you've got a cough, or somebody in your family has a cough, or you have a fever - or anything that they determine that shows that you have COVID-19 - regardless of whether you've been tested or not, they will also test people. ... They're going to use that to pull you or your loved ones, especially your children, away under pretense of public safety. They're going to say that your child has to be removed from you because you have COVID-19 and so to protect your child, we're going to take the child. Or, we're going to take your grandmother, or your father or you and put you into quarantine. He asked audience members to contact their U.S. representatives to advocate against H.R. 6666, much like online petitions that began circulating around the same time as Buttar's video. But these were completely false claims based on, at best, a misunderstanding of Rush's introduced legislation. What Exactly Would H.R. 6666 Do? As currently written, the legislation would set aside $100 billion in federal money for fiscal year 2020 that 'community health centers, school based health centers, academic medical centers, non-profits (including faith-based organizations) and other entities' can apply to use, according to a statement from Rush's office and the legislation. Pending no amendments and final approval of the $100 billion bill (as of this writing, it was awaiting its first hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), federal health officials would prioritize grant applicants from areas that are currently underserved by medical professionals or where the rate of infections exceeds the national average. To that point, Rush elaborated on Twitter: COVID-19 is disproportionately killing black folks. My bill is about increasing testing for minorities & other medically underserved communities ... Under the bill's terms, chosen recipients would then have to use the money to buy COVID-19 testing equipment and personal protective gear, and hire and train people in their communities to run 'mobile testing units' and do 'door-to-door outreach' - all with the goal of helping individuals who are isolating at home and figuring out how, exactly, COVID-19 is spreading on a community-by-community basis, according to Rush and the statement. The latter objective, known as contact tracing, involves the following, according to the CDC: Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection. In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious. Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible. To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them. According to the CDC and national health security officials, that type of on-the-ground work to track COVID-19 transmission patterns is a key strategy for curbing the U.S. outbreak. Per the CDC, 'immediate action is needed' for communities to 'scale up and train a large contact tracer workforce,' like what Rush's bill proposes to fund. A COVID-19 response plan by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security summarized the need like this: In order to save lives, reduce COVID-19's burden on our healthcare system, ease strict social distancing measures, and confidently make progress toward returning to work and school, the United States must implement a robust and comprehensive system to identify all COVID-19 cases and trace all close contacts of each identified case. Rush's legislation had 39 co-authors as of this publication, including one Republican. What About the Bill Is Being Misinterpreted? The legislation does not go into detail on how, exactly, the grant recipients must conduct contact tracing nor how they must operate the 'mobile health units' during the pandemic. It states: Based on the nature of complaints from critics, the latter point - that, as necessary, staff would visit people at their homes and provide them services 'related to testing and quarantine' to limit the spread of COVID-19 - was likely the source of inspiration for the claims that COVID-19 testing groups could forcibly enter homes and conduct testing. Yet, a few lines lower in the bill, authors wrote 'nothing in this [legislation] shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality' requirements - which includes not only privacy protections for how grant recipients could use the medical information of individuals but also the Fourth Amendment right to privacy 'against unreasonable searches' of property by the government and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the bill's language would not authorize federally-administered groups, including local recipients of the grant money, to forcibly enter homes and test Americans for COVID-19. If a team (funded by the grant) were to knock on the front door to your home, or if you noticed one of their 'mobile health units' in your neighborhood, you would have the right to decline a COVID-19 test. All testing under the legislation would be voluntary. Additionally, nowhere does the legislation call for the removal of people - including children or elderly Americans - from their homes, as Buttar's viral video claimed. It also does not authorize groups to force Americans to quarantine. 'There is nothing in this bill that will threaten anyone's individual liberties,' Rush wrote on Twitter. '[It] would increase testing and outreach efforts for communities most impacted by the coronavirus.' In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"08970-proof-02-GettyImages-534230762-2-scaled-e1589240413609.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, or H.R. 6666, would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter American homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 1, 2020, as U.S. federal leaders negotiated emergency proposals to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois introduced a proposal that would set aside $100 billion to help local agencies identify people who were exposed to the coronavirus without knowing it. Rush, a Democrat who represents much of Chicago's South Side, authored the so-called H.R. 6666 - COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act - a 646-word bill that would establish a new grant program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to which local clinics, hospitals, nonprofits, and schools could apply for funding. But soon after Rush introduced the legislation - a formality in Congressional lawmaking that precedes the committee-hearing process where federal leaders negotiate the specifics of legislation and decide whether it should advance for final votes - critics on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit began sharing posts describing how they interpreted Rush's legislation. While some of those interpretations suggested the legislation would allow grant recipients to prohibit any non-vaccinated persons into their facilities (Snopes fact-checked that claim here), other interpretations focused on what the legislation would mean for COVID-19 testing. People claimed H.R. 6666 would violate American's constitutional rights by allowing federally-administered testing groups to enter homes against owners' will in order to conduct COVID-19 testing and force people to take the tests, even if they didn't want to. Soon, those types of fears around H.R. 6666 morphed into exaggerated claims that the legislation would allow COVID-19 testing groups to 'enter your house, test and vaccinate you against your will and take your children,' as one Snopes reader said. Among the most popular claims were those made by anti-vaccine advocate, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who asked viewers in a live video stream on May 8 to share his read on the House bill. Buttar, a licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said in the video: Basically this act is to allow individuals to come into your house and if you've got a cough, or somebody in your family has a cough, or you have a fever - or anything that they determine that shows that you have COVID-19 - regardless of whether you've been tested or not, they will also test people. ... They're going to use that to pull you or your loved ones, especially your children, away under pretense of public safety. They're going to say that your child has to be removed from you because you have COVID-19 and so to protect your child, we're going to take the child. Or, we're going to take your grandmother, or your father or you and put you into quarantine. He asked audience members to contact their U.S. representatives to advocate against H.R. 6666, much like online petitions that began circulating around the same time as Buttar's video. But these were completely false claims based on, at best, a misunderstanding of Rush's introduced legislation. What Exactly Would H.R. 6666 Do? As currently written, the legislation would set aside $100 billion in federal money for fiscal year 2020 that 'community health centers, school based health centers, academic medical centers, non-profits (including faith-based organizations) and other entities' can apply to use, according to a statement from Rush's office and the legislation. Pending no amendments and final approval of the $100 billion bill (as of this writing, it was awaiting its first hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), federal health officials would prioritize grant applicants from areas that are currently underserved by medical professionals or where the rate of infections exceeds the national average. To that point, Rush elaborated on Twitter: COVID-19 is disproportionately killing black folks. My bill is about increasing testing for minorities & other medically underserved communities ... Under the bill's terms, chosen recipients would then have to use the money to buy COVID-19 testing equipment and personal protective gear, and hire and train people in their communities to run 'mobile testing units' and do 'door-to-door outreach' - all with the goal of helping individuals who are isolating at home and figuring out how, exactly, COVID-19 is spreading on a community-by-community basis, according to Rush and the statement. The latter objective, known as contact tracing, involves the following, according to the CDC: Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection. In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious. Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible. To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them. According to the CDC and national health security officials, that type of on-the-ground work to track COVID-19 transmission patterns is a key strategy for curbing the U.S. outbreak. Per the CDC, 'immediate action is needed' for communities to 'scale up and train a large contact tracer workforce,' like what Rush's bill proposes to fund. A COVID-19 response plan by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security summarized the need like this: In order to save lives, reduce COVID-19's burden on our healthcare system, ease strict social distancing measures, and confidently make progress toward returning to work and school, the United States must implement a robust and comprehensive system to identify all COVID-19 cases and trace all close contacts of each identified case. Rush's legislation had 39 co-authors as of this publication, including one Republican. What About the Bill Is Being Misinterpreted? The legislation does not go into detail on how, exactly, the grant recipients must conduct contact tracing nor how they must operate the 'mobile health units' during the pandemic. It states: Based on the nature of complaints from critics, the latter point - that, as necessary, staff would visit people at their homes and provide them services 'related to testing and quarantine' to limit the spread of COVID-19 - was likely the source of inspiration for the claims that COVID-19 testing groups could forcibly enter homes and conduct testing. Yet, a few lines lower in the bill, authors wrote 'nothing in this [legislation] shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality' requirements - which includes not only privacy protections for how grant recipients could use the medical information of individuals but also the Fourth Amendment right to privacy 'against unreasonable searches' of property by the government and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the bill's language would not authorize federally-administered groups, including local recipients of the grant money, to forcibly enter homes and test Americans for COVID-19. If a team (funded by the grant) were to knock on the front door to your home, or if you noticed one of their 'mobile health units' in your neighborhood, you would have the right to decline a COVID-19 test. All testing under the legislation would be voluntary. Additionally, nowhere does the legislation call for the removal of people - including children or elderly Americans - from their homes, as Buttar's viral video claimed. It also does not authorize groups to force Americans to quarantine. 'There is nothing in this bill that will threaten anyone's individual liberties,' Rush wrote on Twitter. '[It] would increase testing and outreach efforts for communities most impacted by the coronavirus.' In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"08970-proof-02-GettyImages-534230762-2-scaled-e1589240413609.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, or H.R. 6666, would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter American homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 1, 2020, as U.S. federal leaders negotiated emergency proposals to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois introduced a proposal that would set aside $100 billion to help local agencies identify people who were exposed to the coronavirus without knowing it. Rush, a Democrat who represents much of Chicago's South Side, authored the so-called H.R. 6666 - COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act - a 646-word bill that would establish a new grant program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to which local clinics, hospitals, nonprofits, and schools could apply for funding. But soon after Rush introduced the legislation - a formality in Congressional lawmaking that precedes the committee-hearing process where federal leaders negotiate the specifics of legislation and decide whether it should advance for final votes - critics on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit began sharing posts describing how they interpreted Rush's legislation. While some of those interpretations suggested the legislation would allow grant recipients to prohibit any non-vaccinated persons into their facilities (Snopes fact-checked that claim here), other interpretations focused on what the legislation would mean for COVID-19 testing. People claimed H.R. 6666 would violate American's constitutional rights by allowing federally-administered testing groups to enter homes against owners' will in order to conduct COVID-19 testing and force people to take the tests, even if they didn't want to. Soon, those types of fears around H.R. 6666 morphed into exaggerated claims that the legislation would allow COVID-19 testing groups to 'enter your house, test and vaccinate you against your will and take your children,' as one Snopes reader said. Among the most popular claims were those made by anti-vaccine advocate, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who asked viewers in a live video stream on May 8 to share his read on the House bill. Buttar, a licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said in the video: Basically this act is to allow individuals to come into your house and if you've got a cough, or somebody in your family has a cough, or you have a fever - or anything that they determine that shows that you have COVID-19 - regardless of whether you've been tested or not, they will also test people. ... They're going to use that to pull you or your loved ones, especially your children, away under pretense of public safety. They're going to say that your child has to be removed from you because you have COVID-19 and so to protect your child, we're going to take the child. Or, we're going to take your grandmother, or your father or you and put you into quarantine. He asked audience members to contact their U.S. representatives to advocate against H.R. 6666, much like online petitions that began circulating around the same time as Buttar's video. But these were completely false claims based on, at best, a misunderstanding of Rush's introduced legislation. What Exactly Would H.R. 6666 Do? As currently written, the legislation would set aside $100 billion in federal money for fiscal year 2020 that 'community health centers, school based health centers, academic medical centers, non-profits (including faith-based organizations) and other entities' can apply to use, according to a statement from Rush's office and the legislation. Pending no amendments and final approval of the $100 billion bill (as of this writing, it was awaiting its first hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), federal health officials would prioritize grant applicants from areas that are currently underserved by medical professionals or where the rate of infections exceeds the national average. To that point, Rush elaborated on Twitter: COVID-19 is disproportionately killing black folks. My bill is about increasing testing for minorities & other medically underserved communities ... Under the bill's terms, chosen recipients would then have to use the money to buy COVID-19 testing equipment and personal protective gear, and hire and train people in their communities to run 'mobile testing units' and do 'door-to-door outreach' - all with the goal of helping individuals who are isolating at home and figuring out how, exactly, COVID-19 is spreading on a community-by-community basis, according to Rush and the statement. The latter objective, known as contact tracing, involves the following, according to the CDC: Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection. In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious. Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible. To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them. According to the CDC and national health security officials, that type of on-the-ground work to track COVID-19 transmission patterns is a key strategy for curbing the U.S. outbreak. Per the CDC, 'immediate action is needed' for communities to 'scale up and train a large contact tracer workforce,' like what Rush's bill proposes to fund. A COVID-19 response plan by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security summarized the need like this: In order to save lives, reduce COVID-19's burden on our healthcare system, ease strict social distancing measures, and confidently make progress toward returning to work and school, the United States must implement a robust and comprehensive system to identify all COVID-19 cases and trace all close contacts of each identified case. Rush's legislation had 39 co-authors as of this publication, including one Republican. What About the Bill Is Being Misinterpreted? The legislation does not go into detail on how, exactly, the grant recipients must conduct contact tracing nor how they must operate the 'mobile health units' during the pandemic. It states: Based on the nature of complaints from critics, the latter point - that, as necessary, staff would visit people at their homes and provide them services 'related to testing and quarantine' to limit the spread of COVID-19 - was likely the source of inspiration for the claims that COVID-19 testing groups could forcibly enter homes and conduct testing. Yet, a few lines lower in the bill, authors wrote 'nothing in this [legislation] shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality' requirements - which includes not only privacy protections for how grant recipients could use the medical information of individuals but also the Fourth Amendment right to privacy 'against unreasonable searches' of property by the government and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the bill's language would not authorize federally-administered groups, including local recipients of the grant money, to forcibly enter homes and test Americans for COVID-19. If a team (funded by the grant) were to knock on the front door to your home, or if you noticed one of their 'mobile health units' in your neighborhood, you would have the right to decline a COVID-19 test. All testing under the legislation would be voluntary. Additionally, nowhere does the legislation call for the removal of people - including children or elderly Americans - from their homes, as Buttar's viral video claimed. It also does not authorize groups to force Americans to quarantine. 'There is nothing in this bill that will threaten anyone's individual liberties,' Rush wrote on Twitter. '[It] would increase testing and outreach efforts for communities most impacted by the coronavirus.' In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"08970-proof-02-GettyImages-534230762-2-scaled-e1589240413609.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, or H.R. 6666, would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter American homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 1, 2020, as U.S. federal leaders negotiated emergency proposals to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois introduced a proposal that would set aside $100 billion to help local agencies identify people who were exposed to the coronavirus without knowing it. Rush, a Democrat who represents much of Chicago's South Side, authored the so-called H.R. 6666 - COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act - a 646-word bill that would establish a new grant program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to which local clinics, hospitals, nonprofits, and schools could apply for funding. But soon after Rush introduced the legislation - a formality in Congressional lawmaking that precedes the committee-hearing process where federal leaders negotiate the specifics of legislation and decide whether it should advance for final votes - critics on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit began sharing posts describing how they interpreted Rush's legislation. While some of those interpretations suggested the legislation would allow grant recipients to prohibit any non-vaccinated persons into their facilities (Snopes fact-checked that claim here), other interpretations focused on what the legislation would mean for COVID-19 testing. People claimed H.R. 6666 would violate American's constitutional rights by allowing federally-administered testing groups to enter homes against owners' will in order to conduct COVID-19 testing and force people to take the tests, even if they didn't want to. Soon, those types of fears around H.R. 6666 morphed into exaggerated claims that the legislation would allow COVID-19 testing groups to 'enter your house, test and vaccinate you against your will and take your children,' as one Snopes reader said. Among the most popular claims were those made by anti-vaccine advocate, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who asked viewers in a live video stream on May 8 to share his read on the House bill. Buttar, a licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said in the video: Basically this act is to allow individuals to come into your house and if you've got a cough, or somebody in your family has a cough, or you have a fever - or anything that they determine that shows that you have COVID-19 - regardless of whether you've been tested or not, they will also test people. ... They're going to use that to pull you or your loved ones, especially your children, away under pretense of public safety. They're going to say that your child has to be removed from you because you have COVID-19 and so to protect your child, we're going to take the child. Or, we're going to take your grandmother, or your father or you and put you into quarantine. He asked audience members to contact their U.S. representatives to advocate against H.R. 6666, much like online petitions that began circulating around the same time as Buttar's video. But these were completely false claims based on, at best, a misunderstanding of Rush's introduced legislation. What Exactly Would H.R. 6666 Do? As currently written, the legislation would set aside $100 billion in federal money for fiscal year 2020 that 'community health centers, school based health centers, academic medical centers, non-profits (including faith-based organizations) and other entities' can apply to use, according to a statement from Rush's office and the legislation. Pending no amendments and final approval of the $100 billion bill (as of this writing, it was awaiting its first hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), federal health officials would prioritize grant applicants from areas that are currently underserved by medical professionals or where the rate of infections exceeds the national average. To that point, Rush elaborated on Twitter: COVID-19 is disproportionately killing black folks. My bill is about increasing testing for minorities & other medically underserved communities ... Under the bill's terms, chosen recipients would then have to use the money to buy COVID-19 testing equipment and personal protective gear, and hire and train people in their communities to run 'mobile testing units' and do 'door-to-door outreach' - all with the goal of helping individuals who are isolating at home and figuring out how, exactly, COVID-19 is spreading on a community-by-community basis, according to Rush and the statement. The latter objective, known as contact tracing, involves the following, according to the CDC: Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection. In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious. Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible. To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them. According to the CDC and national health security officials, that type of on-the-ground work to track COVID-19 transmission patterns is a key strategy for curbing the U.S. outbreak. Per the CDC, 'immediate action is needed' for communities to 'scale up and train a large contact tracer workforce,' like what Rush's bill proposes to fund. A COVID-19 response plan by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security summarized the need like this: In order to save lives, reduce COVID-19's burden on our healthcare system, ease strict social distancing measures, and confidently make progress toward returning to work and school, the United States must implement a robust and comprehensive system to identify all COVID-19 cases and trace all close contacts of each identified case. Rush's legislation had 39 co-authors as of this publication, including one Republican. What About the Bill Is Being Misinterpreted? The legislation does not go into detail on how, exactly, the grant recipients must conduct contact tracing nor how they must operate the 'mobile health units' during the pandemic. It states: Based on the nature of complaints from critics, the latter point - that, as necessary, staff would visit people at their homes and provide them services 'related to testing and quarantine' to limit the spread of COVID-19 - was likely the source of inspiration for the claims that COVID-19 testing groups could forcibly enter homes and conduct testing. Yet, a few lines lower in the bill, authors wrote 'nothing in this [legislation] shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality' requirements - which includes not only privacy protections for how grant recipients could use the medical information of individuals but also the Fourth Amendment right to privacy 'against unreasonable searches' of property by the government and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the bill's language would not authorize federally-administered groups, including local recipients of the grant money, to forcibly enter homes and test Americans for COVID-19. If a team (funded by the grant) were to knock on the front door to your home, or if you noticed one of their 'mobile health units' in your neighborhood, you would have the right to decline a COVID-19 test. All testing under the legislation would be voluntary. Additionally, nowhere does the legislation call for the removal of people - including children or elderly Americans - from their homes, as Buttar's viral video claimed. It also does not authorize groups to force Americans to quarantine. 'There is nothing in this bill that will threaten anyone's individual liberties,' Rush wrote on Twitter. '[It] would increase testing and outreach efforts for communities most impacted by the coronavirus.' In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"08970-proof-02-GettyImages-534230762-2-scaled-e1589240413609.jpg"
] |
The COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, or H.R. 6666, would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter American homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 1, 2020, as U.S. federal leaders negotiated emergency proposals to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois introduced a proposal that would set aside $100 billion to help local agencies identify people who were exposed to the coronavirus without knowing it. Rush, a Democrat who represents much of Chicago's South Side, authored the so-called H.R. 6666 - COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act - a 646-word bill that would establish a new grant program under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to which local clinics, hospitals, nonprofits, and schools could apply for funding. But soon after Rush introduced the legislation - a formality in Congressional lawmaking that precedes the committee-hearing process where federal leaders negotiate the specifics of legislation and decide whether it should advance for final votes - critics on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit began sharing posts describing how they interpreted Rush's legislation. While some of those interpretations suggested the legislation would allow grant recipients to prohibit any non-vaccinated persons into their facilities (Snopes fact-checked that claim here), other interpretations focused on what the legislation would mean for COVID-19 testing. People claimed H.R. 6666 would violate American's constitutional rights by allowing federally-administered testing groups to enter homes against owners' will in order to conduct COVID-19 testing and force people to take the tests, even if they didn't want to. Soon, those types of fears around H.R. 6666 morphed into exaggerated claims that the legislation would allow COVID-19 testing groups to 'enter your house, test and vaccinate you against your will and take your children,' as one Snopes reader said. Among the most popular claims were those made by anti-vaccine advocate, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who asked viewers in a live video stream on May 8 to share his read on the House bill. Buttar, a licensed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said in the video: Basically this act is to allow individuals to come into your house and if you've got a cough, or somebody in your family has a cough, or you have a fever - or anything that they determine that shows that you have COVID-19 - regardless of whether you've been tested or not, they will also test people. ... They're going to use that to pull you or your loved ones, especially your children, away under pretense of public safety. They're going to say that your child has to be removed from you because you have COVID-19 and so to protect your child, we're going to take the child. Or, we're going to take your grandmother, or your father or you and put you into quarantine. He asked audience members to contact their U.S. representatives to advocate against H.R. 6666, much like online petitions that began circulating around the same time as Buttar's video. But these were completely false claims based on, at best, a misunderstanding of Rush's introduced legislation. What Exactly Would H.R. 6666 Do? As currently written, the legislation would set aside $100 billion in federal money for fiscal year 2020 that 'community health centers, school based health centers, academic medical centers, non-profits (including faith-based organizations) and other entities' can apply to use, according to a statement from Rush's office and the legislation. Pending no amendments and final approval of the $100 billion bill (as of this writing, it was awaiting its first hearing by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), federal health officials would prioritize grant applicants from areas that are currently underserved by medical professionals or where the rate of infections exceeds the national average. To that point, Rush elaborated on Twitter: COVID-19 is disproportionately killing black folks. My bill is about increasing testing for minorities & other medically underserved communities ... Under the bill's terms, chosen recipients would then have to use the money to buy COVID-19 testing equipment and personal protective gear, and hire and train people in their communities to run 'mobile testing units' and do 'door-to-door outreach' - all with the goal of helping individuals who are isolating at home and figuring out how, exactly, COVID-19 is spreading on a community-by-community basis, according to Rush and the statement. The latter objective, known as contact tracing, involves the following, according to the CDC: Contact tracing is part of the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infection. In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious. Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible. To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them. According to the CDC and national health security officials, that type of on-the-ground work to track COVID-19 transmission patterns is a key strategy for curbing the U.S. outbreak. Per the CDC, 'immediate action is needed' for communities to 'scale up and train a large contact tracer workforce,' like what Rush's bill proposes to fund. A COVID-19 response plan by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security summarized the need like this: In order to save lives, reduce COVID-19's burden on our healthcare system, ease strict social distancing measures, and confidently make progress toward returning to work and school, the United States must implement a robust and comprehensive system to identify all COVID-19 cases and trace all close contacts of each identified case. Rush's legislation had 39 co-authors as of this publication, including one Republican. What About the Bill Is Being Misinterpreted? The legislation does not go into detail on how, exactly, the grant recipients must conduct contact tracing nor how they must operate the 'mobile health units' during the pandemic. It states: Based on the nature of complaints from critics, the latter point - that, as necessary, staff would visit people at their homes and provide them services 'related to testing and quarantine' to limit the spread of COVID-19 - was likely the source of inspiration for the claims that COVID-19 testing groups could forcibly enter homes and conduct testing. Yet, a few lines lower in the bill, authors wrote 'nothing in this [legislation] shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality' requirements - which includes not only privacy protections for how grant recipients could use the medical information of individuals but also the Fourth Amendment right to privacy 'against unreasonable searches' of property by the government and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the bill's language would not authorize federally-administered groups, including local recipients of the grant money, to forcibly enter homes and test Americans for COVID-19. If a team (funded by the grant) were to knock on the front door to your home, or if you noticed one of their 'mobile health units' in your neighborhood, you would have the right to decline a COVID-19 test. All testing under the legislation would be voluntary. Additionally, nowhere does the legislation call for the removal of people - including children or elderly Americans - from their homes, as Buttar's viral video claimed. It also does not authorize groups to force Americans to quarantine. 'There is nothing in this bill that will threaten anyone's individual liberties,' Rush wrote on Twitter. '[It] would increase testing and outreach efforts for communities most impacted by the coronavirus.' In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given the bill's language that explicitly states that its provisions would not supersede existing federal protections to privacy and that rumors about the bill were based on falsified misinterpretation of the legislation, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"08970-proof-02-GettyImages-534230762-2-scaled-e1589240413609.jpg"
] |
Derek Chauvin, whom news reports identified as the cop who kneeled on the neck of George Floyd before he died, was honored for his service by U.S. President Donald Trump at a 2019 rally. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On May 25, 2020, a video surfaced online showing a white Minneapolis police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, who pleaded he couldn't breathe and who later died. Two days later, social media users claimed the officer - whom news reports had identified as Derek Chauvin - had shared a stage with U.S. President Donald Trump at a Minneapolis rally in October 2019, where the president supposedly praised Chauvin for his service. The claim - which spread online simultaneously with a photograph that users believed to show Chauvin wearing a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat (here's our fact check of that claim) - spurred Americans' outrage over what they described as the senseless killing of Floyd by police. One person said on Twitter in reference to Chauvin's alleged support for Trump: ... I keep telling folks, this is what's at stake in 2020, these are the people who the President gives a wink and a nod to when it comes to murdering black people Multiple sources told the Star Tribune newspaper that Chauvin, 44, was the officer seen in the viral video kneeling on and pinning down Floyd before his death at a local hospital. Four officers involved in the case (including Chauvin) were fired from the city's police department on May 26, and the FBI was investigating under what circumstances, exactly, Floyd died. The photos in the above-mentioned claim are indeed from a Trump rally at the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis on Oct. 10, 2019. But they do not show Chauvin. Here's what happened at the rally: Led by Lt. Bob Kroll, the head of the Minneapolis police union, a group of about a dozen people wearing red 'Cops for Trump' T-shirts shared the stage with the president for about three minutes during the hours-long event. Kroll addressed the crowd, thanking Trump for his support for law enforcement, and each member of the group shook hands with the president, with some of them giving him a hug. 'I came right here to Minnesota, and I pledged to address this really important issue, and it's the issue of law enforcement,' Trump told the crowd. 'The respect that we have for law enforcement is unbound.' Among the people who hugged Trump was a man who at one point held a sign that read 'LAW & ORDER VOTE TRUMP' above his head on stage with a big smile. He was the person at the center of the May 2020 online buzz. In a phone interview with Snopes early May 27, 2020, Sgt. John Elder, a spokesman for the Minneapolis Police Department, essentially debunked the assertion, while emphasizing that whoever was photographed at the rally was not on duty and, therefore, not covered by parameters on which the department would comment. Asked explicitly if the man photographed on stage with Trump at the Minneapolis rally is Chauvin, Elder said: I don't think it is. I think it's one of our retired officers. ... The people that were front and center were federation folks and some were retired federation folks, and he (the officer involved in Floyd's death) doesn't fall anywhere in that category. It could be, but I'll tell you, I certainly don't think it is. My official comment is: Whoever it is, is off duty. Later that day, journalists with TV station FOX9 contacted Kroll, the leader of the 'Cops for Trump' group at the rally, who also said the officer in question was not Chauvin. Then, on May 28, 2020, Kroll went further with his comments and identified the man in question as Bloomington Police Federation President Mike Gallagher. 'Can you put a stop to the false narrative please?' Kroll told the AP. 'None of the officers in the incident were near the Trump rally.' In sum, given the differences in appearance between the Minneapolis police officer shown in the video kneeling on Floyd and the person on stage with Trump, the Minneapolis Police Department's spokesman's belief that it was not Chauvin photographed front and center at the rally, and Kroll's comments to journalists, we rate this claim 'False.'Recent Updates Updated [May 28, 2020]: This report was updated to include additional comments from Kroll in which he named the man in the photo at the Trump rally. | In sum, given the differences in appearance between the Minneapolis police officer shown in the video kneeling on Floyd and the person on stage with Trump, the Minneapolis Police Department's spokesman's belief that it was not Chauvin photographed front and center at the rally, and Kroll's comments to journalists, we rate this claim 'False.'Recent Updates Updated [May 28, 2020]: This report was updated to include additional comments from Kroll in which he named the man in the photo at the Trump rally. | [] |
Derek Chauvin, whom news reports identified as the cop who kneeled on the neck of George Floyd before he died, was honored for his service by U.S. President Donald Trump at a 2019 rally. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On May 25, 2020, a video surfaced online showing a white Minneapolis police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, who pleaded he couldn't breathe and who later died. Two days later, social media users claimed the officer - whom news reports had identified as Derek Chauvin - had shared a stage with U.S. President Donald Trump at a Minneapolis rally in October 2019, where the president supposedly praised Chauvin for his service. The claim - which spread online simultaneously with a photograph that users believed to show Chauvin wearing a 'Make Whites Great Again' hat (here's our fact check of that claim) - spurred Americans' outrage over what they described as the senseless killing of Floyd by police. One person said on Twitter in reference to Chauvin's alleged support for Trump: ... I keep telling folks, this is what's at stake in 2020, these are the people who the President gives a wink and a nod to when it comes to murdering black people Multiple sources told the Star Tribune newspaper that Chauvin, 44, was the officer seen in the viral video kneeling on and pinning down Floyd before his death at a local hospital. Four officers involved in the case (including Chauvin) were fired from the city's police department on May 26, and the FBI was investigating under what circumstances, exactly, Floyd died. The photos in the above-mentioned claim are indeed from a Trump rally at the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis on Oct. 10, 2019. But they do not show Chauvin. Here's what happened at the rally: Led by Lt. Bob Kroll, the head of the Minneapolis police union, a group of about a dozen people wearing red 'Cops for Trump' T-shirts shared the stage with the president for about three minutes during the hours-long event. Kroll addressed the crowd, thanking Trump for his support for law enforcement, and each member of the group shook hands with the president, with some of them giving him a hug. 'I came right here to Minnesota, and I pledged to address this really important issue, and it's the issue of law enforcement,' Trump told the crowd. 'The respect that we have for law enforcement is unbound.' Among the people who hugged Trump was a man who at one point held a sign that read 'LAW & ORDER VOTE TRUMP' above his head on stage with a big smile. He was the person at the center of the May 2020 online buzz. In a phone interview with Snopes early May 27, 2020, Sgt. John Elder, a spokesman for the Minneapolis Police Department, essentially debunked the assertion, while emphasizing that whoever was photographed at the rally was not on duty and, therefore, not covered by parameters on which the department would comment. Asked explicitly if the man photographed on stage with Trump at the Minneapolis rally is Chauvin, Elder said: I don't think it is. I think it's one of our retired officers. ... The people that were front and center were federation folks and some were retired federation folks, and he (the officer involved in Floyd's death) doesn't fall anywhere in that category. It could be, but I'll tell you, I certainly don't think it is. My official comment is: Whoever it is, is off duty. Later that day, journalists with TV station FOX9 contacted Kroll, the leader of the 'Cops for Trump' group at the rally, who also said the officer in question was not Chauvin. Then, on May 28, 2020, Kroll went further with his comments and identified the man in question as Bloomington Police Federation President Mike Gallagher. 'Can you put a stop to the false narrative please?' Kroll told the AP. 'None of the officers in the incident were near the Trump rally.' In sum, given the differences in appearance between the Minneapolis police officer shown in the video kneeling on Floyd and the person on stage with Trump, the Minneapolis Police Department's spokesman's belief that it was not Chauvin photographed front and center at the rally, and Kroll's comments to journalists, we rate this claim 'False.'Recent Updates Updated [May 28, 2020]: This report was updated to include additional comments from Kroll in which he named the man in the photo at the Trump rally. | In sum, given the differences in appearance between the Minneapolis police officer shown in the video kneeling on Floyd and the person on stage with Trump, the Minneapolis Police Department's spokesman's belief that it was not Chauvin photographed front and center at the rally, and Kroll's comments to journalists, we rate this claim 'False.'Recent Updates Updated [May 28, 2020]: This report was updated to include additional comments from Kroll in which he named the man in the photo at the Trump rally. | [] |
Films are routinely made for entertainment purposes in which participants are murdered on camera. | Contradiction | All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product. (Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.) It's not enough to fear there might be one snuff film out there; the belief runs strong that a large creation and distribution network is in operation, with children and young people routinely kidnapped then killed while the cameras roll to meet demand and the films of same circulated through this underground to connoisseurs of the genre. The prurience of human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume if the films existed, there would be those willing to pay to have them. This assumption lies at the heart of the belief that the distribution network is in place. However, fears that a market for such offerings exists are unfounded; even if the market did exist, the product to satisfy it is not there. Hence, there's no market. Each of the following four elements contributes to the belief that snuff films exist: Society's fascination with gore has led filmmakers to experiment with how realistic they can make a horror scene. This has led to the creation of some incredible fakes, including the infamous Flower of Flesh and Blood of the 'Guinea Pig' series. Numerous compilation films in which death scenes - both real and staged - exist. Of these, the Faces of Death series is the most widely known. A number of horror films use as their premise the making of a snuff film or the discovery of same. Rumors about various serial killers videotaping the last moments of their victims abound. (In an extension of the serial killer rumor, some claim these films subsequently found their way into the marketplace.) What with all of these elements being interwoven into the fabric of current society as tightly as they are, it's close to impossible for any rational person to conclude snuff films don't exist. Offhand references to them pop up everywhere. Indeed, the genre for this group of videos even has a name, one we casually invoke the same way we would speak of 'horror' films or 'romantic comedies' - could something we speak of so confidently be a chimera? And yet, that is exactly the case. Capturing a murder on film would be foolhardy at best. Only the most deranged would consider preserving for a jury a perfect video record of a crime he could go to the executioner for. Even if he stays completely out of the camera's way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door. Though someone whose mania has caused him to lose touch with reality might skip over this point, those who are supposedly in the business for the money would be all too aware of this. It doesn't make sense to flirt with the electric chair for the profits derived from a video. Let's start by defining the term and locating its origin, then move on to examine some high-profile films often believed to contain snuff footage, and finish with an examination of the serial killers 'souvenir of the kill' angle. Definition of the Term As to what is or is not a snuff film, according to Kerekes and Slater, authors of Killing for Culture, the bible on the snuff film rumor: Snuff films depict the killing of a human being - a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment. It's a simple definition, but a workable one. Some will further claim that a profit motive must exist, that the final product has to be offered for sale (as opposed to being passed around without charge within a select circle, or remaining solely in the possession of its maker). That detail is extraneous. It's the recording of the death itself which constitutes the 'snuff' in snuff films, not who makes a buck out of it. Likewise, claims that the filmmaker must have had no other motivation than the production of the film should be dismissed. A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film. Origin of the Term Unbelievably, the term was coined during the furor arising from the Manson Family murders of 1969. On 9 August 1969, Sharon Tate and four others were butchered by members of Charles Manson's 'Family.' The next night, a married couple in a neighborhood far distant from that of the Tate residence were slaughtered in similar fashion by the same group. Manson and four of his followers were brought to trial in June, 1970, found guilty of the murders, and sentenced to die. Their sentences were later commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was abolished in 1972. Reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 did not affect the revised sentences as re-sentencing them (or any of the other inmates whose death sentences had been commuted to life during the 'no death penalty' phase) to the original penalty was deemed 'cruel and unusual.' Manson died in prison in 2017. Numerous books were written about the Family, their practices, and the murders they took part in. The best known is Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 Helter Skelter. However, it is towards Ed Sanders' 1971 The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion to which we turn. In it, Sanders relates that the Family may have been involved in the making of 'brutality' (or as he later terms them, 'snuff') films. This was the first recorded use of the term. Pausing for a moment to deal with the rumor raised about Manson and snuff films, Family members stole an NBC-TV truck loaded with film equipment sometime during the summer of 1969. The truck was later dumped and most of the film given away, but Manson kept one of the NBC cameras. The Family were also said to be in possession of three Super-8 cameras and to have used them to make homegrown porn films. The snuff film allegation comes from Sander's interview with an anonymous one-time member of the Family in which Sanders hears about a 'short movie depicting a female victim dead on a beach.' ANON: I, I, I knew, I know, I only know about one snuff movie. I, uh, you know - SANDERS: Which snuff movie do you know about? ANON: I just know like a young chick maybe about 27, short hair... yeah... and chopped her head off, that was... SANDERS: What did the girl look like? What was the scenario? ANON: What was what? SANDERS: What was the scenario? Was she tied up? Did she look willing? ANON: She was dead. She was just lying there. SANDERS: She was already dead? ANON: Yeah. Legs spread, uh. She was nude but nobody was fucking her. They said her head was just chopped off and she was just laying there. (At this point the interviewee acknowledged he hadn't actually seen the film himself but was instead relating a story he'd heard.) From this fanciful beginning, the term 'snuff' came to be used to identify films of this nature. As for Manson and the NBC camera, police seized the last of the stolen equipment - consisting of a camera loaded with unexposed film - during a 10 October 1969 raid on Spahn Ranch. In later editions of The Family, Sanders admits no films depicting actual murder or murder victims have surfaced. A 1984 film called Family Movies is sometimes mistaken for home movies of the Family, but all of its characters are friends of the director, John Aes-Nihil. The First 'Snuff' Film In 1976 the movie Snuff caused a tremendous stir when the word hit the street that an actual film depicting the on-screen murder of an actress had been smuggled into the States from South America, and this was it. Widely-believed hype aside, the film's origin was much more mundane. Snuff was a product of Monarch Releasing Corporation and had been filmed in Argentina in 1971 as Slaughter, a film about bad girls, motorcycles, and bad guys. Slaughter was so ineptly made as to be unreleasable. Five years later, the head of Monarch breathed new life into this terrible piece by splicing on five minutes of additional footage, releasing it as Snuff, and spreading the word this was an actual snuff film. People were horrified, sickened, titillated, outraged... and they went to see it, shelling out the ticket price without argument. Faces of Death Possibly the most famous of all films pointed to as 'snuff' is the Faces Of Death series, a sequence of six videos made up of footage of accidents, suicides, autopsies, and executions, liberally peppered with outright fake scenes. Most of the actual death scenes shown in these films are of the post-death variety. The multiple camera angles give away the acted-out nature of many of the most compelling scenes. Guinea Pig Early in 1991, a film of Asian origin rumored to contain actual snuff footage came into the possession of actor Charlie Sheen. Sheen turned it over to the FBI, quite convinced he'd stumbled onto the real thing, and heartily sickened by what he'd seen. The film in question was Flower of Flesh and Blood, part of a series of films collectively known as 'Guinea Pig.' Some of the 'Guinea Pig' films have at least temporarily fooled the authorities, fueling news stories about the unearthing of snuff films. It's no wonder either; the special effects are very cleverly executed. Flower of Flesh and Blood is the episode which stirs much of the controversy. It features a samurai torturing then dismembering a captive girl until she eventually expires in front of the cameras. It wasn't real. According to The San Francisco Chronicle: The FBI confiscated Sheen's tape and proceeded to investigate all involved, including Charles Balun, an early distributor of the film. Balun fiercely asserted that the film was a hoax and was merely a series of startling special effects. Propitiously, the Japanese took this time to release 'Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One,' revealing the technical sleight of hand in all its bone-cracking glory. After viewing this film, the FBI backed off and dropped the investigation. In a stunning display of bad taste, this film was shown on San Francisco's public access channel in October 1996. Serial Killers As serial killers are apprehended and brought to trial, it is not uncommon for the 'snuff film rumor' to surface about the murders they committed. Perhaps these whispers are born of an attempt to explain the inexplicable, to make some sense of that which is beyond the abilities of most of us to grasp. It's at least a motive we've a chance of understanding. Almost every time the rumor arises, there's utterly nothing to it other than the public's attempt to make sense of a monster. Rumors spring up, swirl around for a while, then disappear as the evidence to support them fails to materialize and the public's fevered imagination is captured by newer, more horrific events. Yet every now and then, there's at least a little bit of fire lurking beneath all that generated smoke. Such is the case with the murders committed by Charles Ng and Leonard Lake and with those perpetuated by Paul Bernardo (aka Paul Teale) and Karla Homolka. For both of those murderous pairings, videotape of the victims featured prominently, both in the investigations and at trial. Not videotapes of the murders though - videotape of the victims while they were still alive. One other deadly pair deserves mention: Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris. You'll soon see why. Serial Killers - Lake and Ng In northern California, during a span of eight months in 1984 and 1985, Leonard Lake and Charles Ng murdered more victims than the police can even now properly count up. Next to the cabin Lake lived in, seven bodies and 45 pounds of bones and ash scattered across a 2-acre Calaveras County compound were discovered. More bodies were uncovered over time, but the police don't believe they've found all of them. They conservatively estimate the pair's body count at upwards of 20 victims. Lake and Ng kidnapped women and held them as sexual slaves before murdering them. Men who got in the way or children the women had with them were murdered outright. Lake committed suicide in 1985 shortly after being arrested on suspicion of shoplifting. After fleeing to Canada and finally being extradited from there, in 1999 Ng stood trial in Orange County, California, for 12 of those murders and was found guilty of 11 of them. He was sentenced to death and is currently on death row at San Quentin State Prison. Videotape of Ng interacting with two of the women subsequently butchered by the pair was introduced at his trial. In one he's seen releasing Kathleen Allen from her bonds while Lake (off-camera) demands, 'Undress for us. We want to see what we bought.' In another, Ng is seen using a large knife to cut the bra off Brenda O'Connor, then dispassionately telling her, 'Nothing is yours now. It'll be totally ours.' Though there is no doubt about the eventual fate of these women, it doesn't take place on camera. All rumors to the contrary, no film exists of Lake or Ng killing anyone. Serial Killers - Bernardo and Homolka As serial killers, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka can be considered less depraved than Lake and Ng only in so far as they didn't murder nearly as many. And that is about the most charitable thing that can be said of them. They too were monsters. In 1991 in southern Ontario (Canada), this husband-and-wife team kidnapped, kept as a sex slave, then two weeks later murdered 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy. In 1992, they abducted 15-year-old Kristen French, kept her for the same purpose for one week, then likewise ended her life. Videotape of French being raped at knifepoint and Mahaffy being assaulted while blindfolded and with her hands cuffed behind her back were shown to the jury during Bernardo's trial. Bernardo is also seen urinating on French and attempting to defecate on her. However, as with Lake and Ng, there's no film of either murder. Predating the deaths of French and Mahaffy, the pair had taken the life of another young victim, Homolka's 15-year-old sister, Tammy Lyn. On Christmas Eve 1990 and as her Christmas present to her then-boyfriend, Homolka drugged the girl with animal tranquilizers, making it possible for Bernardo to rape her at leisure. The child never regained consciousness. She choked on her own vomit and died that night. Videotape of the rape exists. The audio portions of it were played for the jury during Bernardo's trial. The video portion was omitted - the judge deemed it too terrible to be viewed in the courtroom. In 1993, for her part in all three murders, Homolka was sentenced to 12 years behind bars - she completed her sentence and was released from prison in 2005. Bernardo was sentenced to life in prison in 1995. Serial Killers - Bittaker and Norris In 1979 Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris bought, then made over a 1977 silver GMC cargo van to facilitate the kidnapping of young girls in southern California. The two men had met in prison and there discovered a common interest - raping and killing teenage girls. The following is a list of their victims and dates of death: 24 June 1979 - Cindy Schaeffer (16 years old) 8 July 1979 - Andrea Joy Hall (18 years old) 3 September 1979 - Jackie Gilliam (15 years old) 3 September 1979 - Leah Lamp (13 years old) 31 October 1979 - Shirley Ledford (16 years old) All were picked up while hitchhiking. The van ('Murder Mac,' as christened by Bittaker) was used to transport the first four girls to a remote area of the San Gabriel mountains where the rapes and murders took place. Their final victim, Shirley Ledford, was raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed in the van during a two-hour drive through the San Fernando Valley. It is the audio recording made during that ride that is the closest thing in existence to a snuff film - though the tape is only 18 minutes long and ends well before the girl is killed, it's definitely from that brief and fatal encounter. In return for his cooperation and testimony against Bittaker, the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for Norris. He was sentenced to 45 years to life. After being denied parole twice, Norris died in prison in 2020. Bittaker was tried by jury, and on 17 February 1981 convicted on 26 charges of rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder. He was sentenced to death but died of natural causes in a California prison in 2019. In 1996 Bittaker sued the state, claiming he'd been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he'd been served broken cookies and soggy sandwiches while in the care of its penal system. Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | [
"09184-proof-09-Getty-film-projector.jpg"
] |
Films are routinely made for entertainment purposes in which participants are murdered on camera. | Contradiction | All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product. (Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.) It's not enough to fear there might be one snuff film out there; the belief runs strong that a large creation and distribution network is in operation, with children and young people routinely kidnapped then killed while the cameras roll to meet demand and the films of same circulated through this underground to connoisseurs of the genre. The prurience of human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume if the films existed, there would be those willing to pay to have them. This assumption lies at the heart of the belief that the distribution network is in place. However, fears that a market for such offerings exists are unfounded; even if the market did exist, the product to satisfy it is not there. Hence, there's no market. Each of the following four elements contributes to the belief that snuff films exist: Society's fascination with gore has led filmmakers to experiment with how realistic they can make a horror scene. This has led to the creation of some incredible fakes, including the infamous Flower of Flesh and Blood of the 'Guinea Pig' series. Numerous compilation films in which death scenes - both real and staged - exist. Of these, the Faces of Death series is the most widely known. A number of horror films use as their premise the making of a snuff film or the discovery of same. Rumors about various serial killers videotaping the last moments of their victims abound. (In an extension of the serial killer rumor, some claim these films subsequently found their way into the marketplace.) What with all of these elements being interwoven into the fabric of current society as tightly as they are, it's close to impossible for any rational person to conclude snuff films don't exist. Offhand references to them pop up everywhere. Indeed, the genre for this group of videos even has a name, one we casually invoke the same way we would speak of 'horror' films or 'romantic comedies' - could something we speak of so confidently be a chimera? And yet, that is exactly the case. Capturing a murder on film would be foolhardy at best. Only the most deranged would consider preserving for a jury a perfect video record of a crime he could go to the executioner for. Even if he stays completely out of the camera's way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door. Though someone whose mania has caused him to lose touch with reality might skip over this point, those who are supposedly in the business for the money would be all too aware of this. It doesn't make sense to flirt with the electric chair for the profits derived from a video. Let's start by defining the term and locating its origin, then move on to examine some high-profile films often believed to contain snuff footage, and finish with an examination of the serial killers 'souvenir of the kill' angle. Definition of the Term As to what is or is not a snuff film, according to Kerekes and Slater, authors of Killing for Culture, the bible on the snuff film rumor: Snuff films depict the killing of a human being - a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment. It's a simple definition, but a workable one. Some will further claim that a profit motive must exist, that the final product has to be offered for sale (as opposed to being passed around without charge within a select circle, or remaining solely in the possession of its maker). That detail is extraneous. It's the recording of the death itself which constitutes the 'snuff' in snuff films, not who makes a buck out of it. Likewise, claims that the filmmaker must have had no other motivation than the production of the film should be dismissed. A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film. Origin of the Term Unbelievably, the term was coined during the furor arising from the Manson Family murders of 1969. On 9 August 1969, Sharon Tate and four others were butchered by members of Charles Manson's 'Family.' The next night, a married couple in a neighborhood far distant from that of the Tate residence were slaughtered in similar fashion by the same group. Manson and four of his followers were brought to trial in June, 1970, found guilty of the murders, and sentenced to die. Their sentences were later commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was abolished in 1972. Reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 did not affect the revised sentences as re-sentencing them (or any of the other inmates whose death sentences had been commuted to life during the 'no death penalty' phase) to the original penalty was deemed 'cruel and unusual.' Manson died in prison in 2017. Numerous books were written about the Family, their practices, and the murders they took part in. The best known is Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 Helter Skelter. However, it is towards Ed Sanders' 1971 The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion to which we turn. In it, Sanders relates that the Family may have been involved in the making of 'brutality' (or as he later terms them, 'snuff') films. This was the first recorded use of the term. Pausing for a moment to deal with the rumor raised about Manson and snuff films, Family members stole an NBC-TV truck loaded with film equipment sometime during the summer of 1969. The truck was later dumped and most of the film given away, but Manson kept one of the NBC cameras. The Family were also said to be in possession of three Super-8 cameras and to have used them to make homegrown porn films. The snuff film allegation comes from Sander's interview with an anonymous one-time member of the Family in which Sanders hears about a 'short movie depicting a female victim dead on a beach.' ANON: I, I, I knew, I know, I only know about one snuff movie. I, uh, you know - SANDERS: Which snuff movie do you know about? ANON: I just know like a young chick maybe about 27, short hair... yeah... and chopped her head off, that was... SANDERS: What did the girl look like? What was the scenario? ANON: What was what? SANDERS: What was the scenario? Was she tied up? Did she look willing? ANON: She was dead. She was just lying there. SANDERS: She was already dead? ANON: Yeah. Legs spread, uh. She was nude but nobody was fucking her. They said her head was just chopped off and she was just laying there. (At this point the interviewee acknowledged he hadn't actually seen the film himself but was instead relating a story he'd heard.) From this fanciful beginning, the term 'snuff' came to be used to identify films of this nature. As for Manson and the NBC camera, police seized the last of the stolen equipment - consisting of a camera loaded with unexposed film - during a 10 October 1969 raid on Spahn Ranch. In later editions of The Family, Sanders admits no films depicting actual murder or murder victims have surfaced. A 1984 film called Family Movies is sometimes mistaken for home movies of the Family, but all of its characters are friends of the director, John Aes-Nihil. The First 'Snuff' Film In 1976 the movie Snuff caused a tremendous stir when the word hit the street that an actual film depicting the on-screen murder of an actress had been smuggled into the States from South America, and this was it. Widely-believed hype aside, the film's origin was much more mundane. Snuff was a product of Monarch Releasing Corporation and had been filmed in Argentina in 1971 as Slaughter, a film about bad girls, motorcycles, and bad guys. Slaughter was so ineptly made as to be unreleasable. Five years later, the head of Monarch breathed new life into this terrible piece by splicing on five minutes of additional footage, releasing it as Snuff, and spreading the word this was an actual snuff film. People were horrified, sickened, titillated, outraged... and they went to see it, shelling out the ticket price without argument. Faces of Death Possibly the most famous of all films pointed to as 'snuff' is the Faces Of Death series, a sequence of six videos made up of footage of accidents, suicides, autopsies, and executions, liberally peppered with outright fake scenes. Most of the actual death scenes shown in these films are of the post-death variety. The multiple camera angles give away the acted-out nature of many of the most compelling scenes. Guinea Pig Early in 1991, a film of Asian origin rumored to contain actual snuff footage came into the possession of actor Charlie Sheen. Sheen turned it over to the FBI, quite convinced he'd stumbled onto the real thing, and heartily sickened by what he'd seen. The film in question was Flower of Flesh and Blood, part of a series of films collectively known as 'Guinea Pig.' Some of the 'Guinea Pig' films have at least temporarily fooled the authorities, fueling news stories about the unearthing of snuff films. It's no wonder either; the special effects are very cleverly executed. Flower of Flesh and Blood is the episode which stirs much of the controversy. It features a samurai torturing then dismembering a captive girl until she eventually expires in front of the cameras. It wasn't real. According to The San Francisco Chronicle: The FBI confiscated Sheen's tape and proceeded to investigate all involved, including Charles Balun, an early distributor of the film. Balun fiercely asserted that the film was a hoax and was merely a series of startling special effects. Propitiously, the Japanese took this time to release 'Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One,' revealing the technical sleight of hand in all its bone-cracking glory. After viewing this film, the FBI backed off and dropped the investigation. In a stunning display of bad taste, this film was shown on San Francisco's public access channel in October 1996. Serial Killers As serial killers are apprehended and brought to trial, it is not uncommon for the 'snuff film rumor' to surface about the murders they committed. Perhaps these whispers are born of an attempt to explain the inexplicable, to make some sense of that which is beyond the abilities of most of us to grasp. It's at least a motive we've a chance of understanding. Almost every time the rumor arises, there's utterly nothing to it other than the public's attempt to make sense of a monster. Rumors spring up, swirl around for a while, then disappear as the evidence to support them fails to materialize and the public's fevered imagination is captured by newer, more horrific events. Yet every now and then, there's at least a little bit of fire lurking beneath all that generated smoke. Such is the case with the murders committed by Charles Ng and Leonard Lake and with those perpetuated by Paul Bernardo (aka Paul Teale) and Karla Homolka. For both of those murderous pairings, videotape of the victims featured prominently, both in the investigations and at trial. Not videotapes of the murders though - videotape of the victims while they were still alive. One other deadly pair deserves mention: Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris. You'll soon see why. Serial Killers - Lake and Ng In northern California, during a span of eight months in 1984 and 1985, Leonard Lake and Charles Ng murdered more victims than the police can even now properly count up. Next to the cabin Lake lived in, seven bodies and 45 pounds of bones and ash scattered across a 2-acre Calaveras County compound were discovered. More bodies were uncovered over time, but the police don't believe they've found all of them. They conservatively estimate the pair's body count at upwards of 20 victims. Lake and Ng kidnapped women and held them as sexual slaves before murdering them. Men who got in the way or children the women had with them were murdered outright. Lake committed suicide in 1985 shortly after being arrested on suspicion of shoplifting. After fleeing to Canada and finally being extradited from there, in 1999 Ng stood trial in Orange County, California, for 12 of those murders and was found guilty of 11 of them. He was sentenced to death and is currently on death row at San Quentin State Prison. Videotape of Ng interacting with two of the women subsequently butchered by the pair was introduced at his trial. In one he's seen releasing Kathleen Allen from her bonds while Lake (off-camera) demands, 'Undress for us. We want to see what we bought.' In another, Ng is seen using a large knife to cut the bra off Brenda O'Connor, then dispassionately telling her, 'Nothing is yours now. It'll be totally ours.' Though there is no doubt about the eventual fate of these women, it doesn't take place on camera. All rumors to the contrary, no film exists of Lake or Ng killing anyone. Serial Killers - Bernardo and Homolka As serial killers, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka can be considered less depraved than Lake and Ng only in so far as they didn't murder nearly as many. And that is about the most charitable thing that can be said of them. They too were monsters. In 1991 in southern Ontario (Canada), this husband-and-wife team kidnapped, kept as a sex slave, then two weeks later murdered 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy. In 1992, they abducted 15-year-old Kristen French, kept her for the same purpose for one week, then likewise ended her life. Videotape of French being raped at knifepoint and Mahaffy being assaulted while blindfolded and with her hands cuffed behind her back were shown to the jury during Bernardo's trial. Bernardo is also seen urinating on French and attempting to defecate on her. However, as with Lake and Ng, there's no film of either murder. Predating the deaths of French and Mahaffy, the pair had taken the life of another young victim, Homolka's 15-year-old sister, Tammy Lyn. On Christmas Eve 1990 and as her Christmas present to her then-boyfriend, Homolka drugged the girl with animal tranquilizers, making it possible for Bernardo to rape her at leisure. The child never regained consciousness. She choked on her own vomit and died that night. Videotape of the rape exists. The audio portions of it were played for the jury during Bernardo's trial. The video portion was omitted - the judge deemed it too terrible to be viewed in the courtroom. In 1993, for her part in all three murders, Homolka was sentenced to 12 years behind bars - she completed her sentence and was released from prison in 2005. Bernardo was sentenced to life in prison in 1995. Serial Killers - Bittaker and Norris In 1979 Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris bought, then made over a 1977 silver GMC cargo van to facilitate the kidnapping of young girls in southern California. The two men had met in prison and there discovered a common interest - raping and killing teenage girls. The following is a list of their victims and dates of death: 24 June 1979 - Cindy Schaeffer (16 years old) 8 July 1979 - Andrea Joy Hall (18 years old) 3 September 1979 - Jackie Gilliam (15 years old) 3 September 1979 - Leah Lamp (13 years old) 31 October 1979 - Shirley Ledford (16 years old) All were picked up while hitchhiking. The van ('Murder Mac,' as christened by Bittaker) was used to transport the first four girls to a remote area of the San Gabriel mountains where the rapes and murders took place. Their final victim, Shirley Ledford, was raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed in the van during a two-hour drive through the San Fernando Valley. It is the audio recording made during that ride that is the closest thing in existence to a snuff film - though the tape is only 18 minutes long and ends well before the girl is killed, it's definitely from that brief and fatal encounter. In return for his cooperation and testimony against Bittaker, the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for Norris. He was sentenced to 45 years to life. After being denied parole twice, Norris died in prison in 2020. Bittaker was tried by jury, and on 17 February 1981 convicted on 26 charges of rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder. He was sentenced to death but died of natural causes in a California prison in 2019. In 1996 Bittaker sued the state, claiming he'd been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he'd been served broken cookies and soggy sandwiches while in the care of its penal system. Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | [
"09184-proof-09-Getty-film-projector.jpg"
] |
Films are routinely made for entertainment purposes in which participants are murdered on camera. | Contradiction | All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product. (Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.) It's not enough to fear there might be one snuff film out there; the belief runs strong that a large creation and distribution network is in operation, with children and young people routinely kidnapped then killed while the cameras roll to meet demand and the films of same circulated through this underground to connoisseurs of the genre. The prurience of human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume if the films existed, there would be those willing to pay to have them. This assumption lies at the heart of the belief that the distribution network is in place. However, fears that a market for such offerings exists are unfounded; even if the market did exist, the product to satisfy it is not there. Hence, there's no market. Each of the following four elements contributes to the belief that snuff films exist: Society's fascination with gore has led filmmakers to experiment with how realistic they can make a horror scene. This has led to the creation of some incredible fakes, including the infamous Flower of Flesh and Blood of the 'Guinea Pig' series. Numerous compilation films in which death scenes - both real and staged - exist. Of these, the Faces of Death series is the most widely known. A number of horror films use as their premise the making of a snuff film or the discovery of same. Rumors about various serial killers videotaping the last moments of their victims abound. (In an extension of the serial killer rumor, some claim these films subsequently found their way into the marketplace.) What with all of these elements being interwoven into the fabric of current society as tightly as they are, it's close to impossible for any rational person to conclude snuff films don't exist. Offhand references to them pop up everywhere. Indeed, the genre for this group of videos even has a name, one we casually invoke the same way we would speak of 'horror' films or 'romantic comedies' - could something we speak of so confidently be a chimera? And yet, that is exactly the case. Capturing a murder on film would be foolhardy at best. Only the most deranged would consider preserving for a jury a perfect video record of a crime he could go to the executioner for. Even if he stays completely out of the camera's way, too much of who the killer is, how the murder was carried out, and where it took place would be part of such a film, and these details would quickly lead police to the right door. Though someone whose mania has caused him to lose touch with reality might skip over this point, those who are supposedly in the business for the money would be all too aware of this. It doesn't make sense to flirt with the electric chair for the profits derived from a video. Let's start by defining the term and locating its origin, then move on to examine some high-profile films often believed to contain snuff footage, and finish with an examination of the serial killers 'souvenir of the kill' angle. Definition of the Term As to what is or is not a snuff film, according to Kerekes and Slater, authors of Killing for Culture, the bible on the snuff film rumor: Snuff films depict the killing of a human being - a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment. It's a simple definition, but a workable one. Some will further claim that a profit motive must exist, that the final product has to be offered for sale (as opposed to being passed around without charge within a select circle, or remaining solely in the possession of its maker). That detail is extraneous. It's the recording of the death itself which constitutes the 'snuff' in snuff films, not who makes a buck out of it. Likewise, claims that the filmmaker must have had no other motivation than the production of the film should be dismissed. A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film. Origin of the Term Unbelievably, the term was coined during the furor arising from the Manson Family murders of 1969. On 9 August 1969, Sharon Tate and four others were butchered by members of Charles Manson's 'Family.' The next night, a married couple in a neighborhood far distant from that of the Tate residence were slaughtered in similar fashion by the same group. Manson and four of his followers were brought to trial in June, 1970, found guilty of the murders, and sentenced to die. Their sentences were later commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was abolished in 1972. Reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 did not affect the revised sentences as re-sentencing them (or any of the other inmates whose death sentences had been commuted to life during the 'no death penalty' phase) to the original penalty was deemed 'cruel and unusual.' Manson died in prison in 2017. Numerous books were written about the Family, their practices, and the murders they took part in. The best known is Vincent Bugliosi's 1974 Helter Skelter. However, it is towards Ed Sanders' 1971 The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion to which we turn. In it, Sanders relates that the Family may have been involved in the making of 'brutality' (or as he later terms them, 'snuff') films. This was the first recorded use of the term. Pausing for a moment to deal with the rumor raised about Manson and snuff films, Family members stole an NBC-TV truck loaded with film equipment sometime during the summer of 1969. The truck was later dumped and most of the film given away, but Manson kept one of the NBC cameras. The Family were also said to be in possession of three Super-8 cameras and to have used them to make homegrown porn films. The snuff film allegation comes from Sander's interview with an anonymous one-time member of the Family in which Sanders hears about a 'short movie depicting a female victim dead on a beach.' ANON: I, I, I knew, I know, I only know about one snuff movie. I, uh, you know - SANDERS: Which snuff movie do you know about? ANON: I just know like a young chick maybe about 27, short hair... yeah... and chopped her head off, that was... SANDERS: What did the girl look like? What was the scenario? ANON: What was what? SANDERS: What was the scenario? Was she tied up? Did she look willing? ANON: She was dead. She was just lying there. SANDERS: She was already dead? ANON: Yeah. Legs spread, uh. She was nude but nobody was fucking her. They said her head was just chopped off and she was just laying there. (At this point the interviewee acknowledged he hadn't actually seen the film himself but was instead relating a story he'd heard.) From this fanciful beginning, the term 'snuff' came to be used to identify films of this nature. As for Manson and the NBC camera, police seized the last of the stolen equipment - consisting of a camera loaded with unexposed film - during a 10 October 1969 raid on Spahn Ranch. In later editions of The Family, Sanders admits no films depicting actual murder or murder victims have surfaced. A 1984 film called Family Movies is sometimes mistaken for home movies of the Family, but all of its characters are friends of the director, John Aes-Nihil. The First 'Snuff' Film In 1976 the movie Snuff caused a tremendous stir when the word hit the street that an actual film depicting the on-screen murder of an actress had been smuggled into the States from South America, and this was it. Widely-believed hype aside, the film's origin was much more mundane. Snuff was a product of Monarch Releasing Corporation and had been filmed in Argentina in 1971 as Slaughter, a film about bad girls, motorcycles, and bad guys. Slaughter was so ineptly made as to be unreleasable. Five years later, the head of Monarch breathed new life into this terrible piece by splicing on five minutes of additional footage, releasing it as Snuff, and spreading the word this was an actual snuff film. People were horrified, sickened, titillated, outraged... and they went to see it, shelling out the ticket price without argument. Faces of Death Possibly the most famous of all films pointed to as 'snuff' is the Faces Of Death series, a sequence of six videos made up of footage of accidents, suicides, autopsies, and executions, liberally peppered with outright fake scenes. Most of the actual death scenes shown in these films are of the post-death variety. The multiple camera angles give away the acted-out nature of many of the most compelling scenes. Guinea Pig Early in 1991, a film of Asian origin rumored to contain actual snuff footage came into the possession of actor Charlie Sheen. Sheen turned it over to the FBI, quite convinced he'd stumbled onto the real thing, and heartily sickened by what he'd seen. The film in question was Flower of Flesh and Blood, part of a series of films collectively known as 'Guinea Pig.' Some of the 'Guinea Pig' films have at least temporarily fooled the authorities, fueling news stories about the unearthing of snuff films. It's no wonder either; the special effects are very cleverly executed. Flower of Flesh and Blood is the episode which stirs much of the controversy. It features a samurai torturing then dismembering a captive girl until she eventually expires in front of the cameras. It wasn't real. According to The San Francisco Chronicle: The FBI confiscated Sheen's tape and proceeded to investigate all involved, including Charles Balun, an early distributor of the film. Balun fiercely asserted that the film was a hoax and was merely a series of startling special effects. Propitiously, the Japanese took this time to release 'Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One,' revealing the technical sleight of hand in all its bone-cracking glory. After viewing this film, the FBI backed off and dropped the investigation. In a stunning display of bad taste, this film was shown on San Francisco's public access channel in October 1996. Serial Killers As serial killers are apprehended and brought to trial, it is not uncommon for the 'snuff film rumor' to surface about the murders they committed. Perhaps these whispers are born of an attempt to explain the inexplicable, to make some sense of that which is beyond the abilities of most of us to grasp. It's at least a motive we've a chance of understanding. Almost every time the rumor arises, there's utterly nothing to it other than the public's attempt to make sense of a monster. Rumors spring up, swirl around for a while, then disappear as the evidence to support them fails to materialize and the public's fevered imagination is captured by newer, more horrific events. Yet every now and then, there's at least a little bit of fire lurking beneath all that generated smoke. Such is the case with the murders committed by Charles Ng and Leonard Lake and with those perpetuated by Paul Bernardo (aka Paul Teale) and Karla Homolka. For both of those murderous pairings, videotape of the victims featured prominently, both in the investigations and at trial. Not videotapes of the murders though - videotape of the victims while they were still alive. One other deadly pair deserves mention: Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris. You'll soon see why. Serial Killers - Lake and Ng In northern California, during a span of eight months in 1984 and 1985, Leonard Lake and Charles Ng murdered more victims than the police can even now properly count up. Next to the cabin Lake lived in, seven bodies and 45 pounds of bones and ash scattered across a 2-acre Calaveras County compound were discovered. More bodies were uncovered over time, but the police don't believe they've found all of them. They conservatively estimate the pair's body count at upwards of 20 victims. Lake and Ng kidnapped women and held them as sexual slaves before murdering them. Men who got in the way or children the women had with them were murdered outright. Lake committed suicide in 1985 shortly after being arrested on suspicion of shoplifting. After fleeing to Canada and finally being extradited from there, in 1999 Ng stood trial in Orange County, California, for 12 of those murders and was found guilty of 11 of them. He was sentenced to death and is currently on death row at San Quentin State Prison. Videotape of Ng interacting with two of the women subsequently butchered by the pair was introduced at his trial. In one he's seen releasing Kathleen Allen from her bonds while Lake (off-camera) demands, 'Undress for us. We want to see what we bought.' In another, Ng is seen using a large knife to cut the bra off Brenda O'Connor, then dispassionately telling her, 'Nothing is yours now. It'll be totally ours.' Though there is no doubt about the eventual fate of these women, it doesn't take place on camera. All rumors to the contrary, no film exists of Lake or Ng killing anyone. Serial Killers - Bernardo and Homolka As serial killers, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka can be considered less depraved than Lake and Ng only in so far as they didn't murder nearly as many. And that is about the most charitable thing that can be said of them. They too were monsters. In 1991 in southern Ontario (Canada), this husband-and-wife team kidnapped, kept as a sex slave, then two weeks later murdered 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy. In 1992, they abducted 15-year-old Kristen French, kept her for the same purpose for one week, then likewise ended her life. Videotape of French being raped at knifepoint and Mahaffy being assaulted while blindfolded and with her hands cuffed behind her back were shown to the jury during Bernardo's trial. Bernardo is also seen urinating on French and attempting to defecate on her. However, as with Lake and Ng, there's no film of either murder. Predating the deaths of French and Mahaffy, the pair had taken the life of another young victim, Homolka's 15-year-old sister, Tammy Lyn. On Christmas Eve 1990 and as her Christmas present to her then-boyfriend, Homolka drugged the girl with animal tranquilizers, making it possible for Bernardo to rape her at leisure. The child never regained consciousness. She choked on her own vomit and died that night. Videotape of the rape exists. The audio portions of it were played for the jury during Bernardo's trial. The video portion was omitted - the judge deemed it too terrible to be viewed in the courtroom. In 1993, for her part in all three murders, Homolka was sentenced to 12 years behind bars - she completed her sentence and was released from prison in 2005. Bernardo was sentenced to life in prison in 1995. Serial Killers - Bittaker and Norris In 1979 Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris bought, then made over a 1977 silver GMC cargo van to facilitate the kidnapping of young girls in southern California. The two men had met in prison and there discovered a common interest - raping and killing teenage girls. The following is a list of their victims and dates of death: 24 June 1979 - Cindy Schaeffer (16 years old) 8 July 1979 - Andrea Joy Hall (18 years old) 3 September 1979 - Jackie Gilliam (15 years old) 3 September 1979 - Leah Lamp (13 years old) 31 October 1979 - Shirley Ledford (16 years old) All were picked up while hitchhiking. The van ('Murder Mac,' as christened by Bittaker) was used to transport the first four girls to a remote area of the San Gabriel mountains where the rapes and murders took place. Their final victim, Shirley Ledford, was raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed in the van during a two-hour drive through the San Fernando Valley. It is the audio recording made during that ride that is the closest thing in existence to a snuff film - though the tape is only 18 minutes long and ends well before the girl is killed, it's definitely from that brief and fatal encounter. In return for his cooperation and testimony against Bittaker, the prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for Norris. He was sentenced to 45 years to life. After being denied parole twice, Norris died in prison in 2020. Bittaker was tried by jury, and on 17 February 1981 convicted on 26 charges of rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder. He was sentenced to death but died of natural causes in a California prison in 2019. In 1996 Bittaker sued the state, claiming he'd been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he'd been served broken cookies and soggy sandwiches while in the care of its penal system. Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | Conclusion When it comes to snuff films, it's easy to be romanced by what appears in the news into believing verifiable examples of the genre are out there. Time and again, however, what was ballyhooed as the seizure of a cache of snuff films turns out to be the netting of fakes like the Flower of Flesh and Blood tape or compilation films of the Faces of Death ilk. These aren't snuff films... but you rarely see members of the press taking pains to make this point clear, thus leaving the general public with the idea that tapes of such murders abound. Likewise, anyone who claims to have participated in the making or distribution of a snuff film gets his day in the papers. That the videos fail to turn up might net a tiny followup on a far distant date, but even then not on anything approaching the scale on which the original 'Suspect Claims He Was Part of a Snuff Film Ring!' articles were emblazoned across the front page. The world being full of depraved individuals is used as justification for believing in the snuff film fallacy. That it could happen is translated in the minds of many to it must have happened. Somewhere. At some time. We just haven't found the film yet. The rumor about snuff films has been with us since the early 1970s. In close to 50 years, not one of those films has surfaced. When tempted to believe this rumor, keep that fact close to your heart. Remind yourself - again and again, if you have to - that nothing ever comes of these investigations. It's possible the unthinkable did come close to happening at one time. In 1989, two Virginia men were arrested by the FBI after broadcasting on a computer bulletin board their plans to kidnap a randomly-selected boy, molest, then kill him for a pornographic snuff film. Daniel Depew and Dean Lambey were picked up, tried, and thrown in jail for hatching this plot, with Depew sentenced to 33 years behind bars, and Lambey to 30. Would they have carried out the scheme? It's hard to say now - their defense maintained all their chatter was nothing but a sick fantasy the men aired, not something they would have acted on. The judge (needless to say in light of those sentences) thought different. The only snuff films proven to exist involve animals. In 1998, nine 'squish' videos were seized by Scottish police and their distributor arrested. These videos showed scantily-clad women crushing under their high heels an assortment of small animals, including frogs, mice, insects, and a snail. Authorities say the same items have been available in Britain since 1996. Driving to the heart of the matter and pushing aside for the moment all the fakes and movies about movies, it's the activities of serial killers which come closest to mimicking the snuff film bogeyman. In some instances, videotape does exist of murderers torturing victims they would later kill off-camera. Some day it's possible all of a murder will turn up on such a tape. Even so, purists will tend to dismiss this footage because it does not conform to an overly-strict definition involving the necessity for a profit motive. If these snippets of film are to be dismissed, it should be for an entirely different reason. Fear of a thriving snuff film industry is what drives this popular myth. As a society, we're not all that concerned with the concept of serial killers walking among us, killing here and there, because no one thinks of himself or his loved ones as potential serial murder victims. In our naivete, we still equate being selected as a sicko's prey with the victim either having done something to bring it on or not being bright enough to tell something was wrong with the guy. (We hang onto the comforting yet nutty idea we'd be able to recognize such a monster a mile away.) Being beyond reproach ourselves (we'd never do anything to rile such a maniac) and quite brilliant about recognizing serial killers, we don't live in fear of the sex-crazed or hears-voices-in-his-head crazy - clearly, he won't come after us. However, we do fear the notion of a 'murder as a business' set-up because that takes the slavering maniac right out of the picture and in his place substitutes the Reasonable Man Out To Make a Buck. Victims of such a scheme could be undeserving (innocent) - this could happen to us! And it is on the back of this fear belief in the myth rides in on. We fear not the killers among us, but the businessmen.Recent Updates [23 April 2021] Updated with information about Homolka's release; Manson's death; Norris' denial of parole and death; Bittaker's death. | [
"09184-proof-09-Getty-film-projector.jpg"
] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down to prevent him from meeting with the FBI over plans to testify against Hillary Clinton. | Contradiction | On 10 July 2016, Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Conrad Rich was shot and killed just after 4 AM in Washington, D.C. Rich's tragic death was undoubtedly destined to feed a number of conspiracy theories due to his line of work and the proximity of the 2016 presidential election. Among those theories were myriad conflicting claims that Rich was covertly working to expose election fraud, collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on an unspecified investigation, or a recycled assertion that he was imminently to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was gunned down. (No ongoing court case we could locate would involve any such testimony from Rich.) On 13 July 2016, the notoriously unreliable conspiracy-flogging outlet WhatDoesItMean.com hoovered up the fresh tragedy as part of what appeared to be a series of articles capitalizing on recent deaths to drive conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Describing the 27-year-old Rich as a 'top' DNC 'official,' the site blared that he was bumped off by a Clinton 'hit team': Assassination Of Top US Democratic Party Official Leads To FBI Capture Of Clinton 'Hit Team' A somber Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that a top American Democratic Party staffer preparing to testify against Hillary Clinton was assassinated this past Sunday during a secret meeting in Washington D.C. he believed he was having with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, but who turned out, instead, to be a 'hit team'-and who, in turn, were captured yesterday after a running gun battle with US federal police forces just blocks from the White House. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.] This SVR report, though, says that DNC official Seth Rich was 'lured/enticed' to his murder by this Clinton 'hit team' who portrayed themselves as FBI agents wanting to secretly interview him-and that the expelled Russian diplomats had given the US State Department 'electronic access' to so that they could be found. Curiously, this report continues, US authorities, and while being able to track this Clinton 'hit team' since 7 July, only confronted these assassins yesterday-and who before being captured, engaged in a gun battle with US federal police forces firing their fully automatic weapons before being trapped and surrendering just blocks from the US Capitol and White House. In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | In short, WhatDoesItMean.com held that Rich was under the impression he was to meet with FBI agents (at the bizarre hour of 4:00 AM) but in actuality had been set up for a fatal encounter with hit men working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The site correctly quoted a D.C. Metro police press release, as we contacted the department and confirmed that release contained all known information about Rich's death: Detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch are investigating a fatal shooting that occurred in the 2100 block of Flagler Place, Northwest on Sunday, July 10, 2016. At approximately 4:19 am, members of the Fifth District were patrolling the area when they heard gunshots. Upon arrival on the scene, members located an adult male victim conscious and breathing, and suffering from gunshot wounds. The victim was transported to an area hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich, of Northwest, DC. Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous news reports suggested that Rich's murder was indeed perplexing, as elements of the incident were dissonant with the appearance of a robbery gone awry: 'If it was a robbery - it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money - he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life,' said Joel Rich, Seth's father. Immediately after that portion, the article quoted the elder Rich regarding the moments prior to his son's death. According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday: Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened. 'Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back - I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,' said Rich. According to Washington, D.C. television station WUSA, a string of robberies had occurred in the area where Rich was killed, and police believe that spate of crime was likely connected with his death. The station also reported that the 27-year-old staffer worked in voter expansion, helping people 'find their polling places'; Rich's age and the relatively minor scope of his duties made him an unlikely linchpin in a conspiracy involving election fraud or any purported testimony against Hillary Clinton. The young staffer had only been employed with the DNC, where he was a Voter Expansion Data Director, since 2014, making his position and tenure an unlikely match-up with possession of crucial information for which he was supposedly killed. Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson Alice Kim said 'there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC.' Slate also noted that the conspiracy theory version of Rich's death was lacking in both evidence and sense, yet WikiLeaks has since fanned the flames of speculation by offering a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's killer: Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in an early morning shooting that police have speculated was a failed robbery. Because Rich did voter outreach for the DNC and because we live in a ridiculous world, conspiracy theorists have glommed on to a fantastical story that Rich was an FBI informant meeting with purported agents who were actually a hit team sent by Hillary Clinton. There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this. The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month's WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. Rich's hometown newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, also observed the lack of any substance to such rumors: Fevered political conspiracy theories about the death of Seth Rich have been swirling through online comment sections and websites ever since the Omaha native was gunned down early on July 10 close to his home in northwest Washington, D.C. All indications from police have been that Rich's death was most likely the result of a botched robbery - a sadly too-common case of a promising young man cut down simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that hasn't stopped wild Internet speculation from going viral, based in part on the fact that Rich worked at the Democratic National Committee. Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's death. Never mind the evidence in favor of a robbery, the fact that the leaked emails were released well after his death or even that WikiLeaks itself stressed that the reward should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak. A spokesman for the Rich family said that people 'attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy' are 'causing more harm than good': [S]ome are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder. Rich was the second deceased individual 'connected' to Clinton by WhatDoesItMean.com and the third inaccurately reported as endangered by the candidate. The same outlet falsely claimed hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) was missing and presumed dead after he purportedly hacked into Clinton's e-mail, and just prior to that the site claimed former UN official John Ashe had been murdered on the eve of his providing scheduled testimony against Clinton. Guccifer was confirmed alive and well by officials at the facility in which he was housed, and a federal prosecutor's office affirmed Ashe's legal troubles were in no way connected to Clinton. A common thread between the three rumors was a blogger known by the nom de plume 'Sorcha Faal.' RationalWiki describes Faal's WhatDoesItMean.com conspiracy site as 'sensational' and 'outrageous': Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of 'reports' published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. While it's true police maintain an open investigation into Seth Rich's death, the claim connecting him to Hillary Clinton was the third of its sort to emerge from the same conspiracy-monger in mid-2016. All those rumors were variations on the long-circulating (and false) 'body bags' claims that the Clintons habitually do away with once-loyal associates turned political liabilities. Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn't happen), that Rear Admiral Rick Williams was fired because he revealed Obama's purchase of a mansion in Dubai (Williams was actually terminated for misconduct), and that Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a potentially conflict-starting dispute over the practices of the Monsanto agribusiness corporation. | [] |
There are no mosquitoes at Disney World. | Contradiction | Over the years, various headlines and Reddit threads have claimed that 'no mosquitoes' can be found at Walt Disney World Resort because of mosquito control. Some have even said that park guests would 'never' encounter them. Certain rumors about Disney have a way of continuing to spread like legends for decades, such as the idea that Walt Disney was frozen after he died. Exaggerated Headlines A number of headlines led to stories about Disney World's mosquito control, such as: 'Why Are There No Mosquitoes at Disney World?' Another said: 'Banned From Disney World: Why You Don't See Mosquitoes at the Most Magical Place on Earth.' A third read: 'The Fascinating Reason Why There Are No Mosquitoes at Disney World.' Several used the word 'never': 'This Is Why You Never See Mosquitoes at Disney World.' We even noticed paid online advertisements that made the strange claim, both next to news articles and on Twitter. One claimed: 'Genius Reason Why Disney World Has No Mosquitoes.' Another said: 'The Ingenious Reason There Are No Mosquitoes At Disney World.' These misleading ads have been circulating online since at least 2020. It's true that Disney World stated that it has 'an extensive mosquito prevention and monitoring program' to control the population. It even provides complimentary insect repellent. From a number of personal anecdotes found online, it appeared that the company does do an effective job of reducing the number of mosquitoes on the property. However, the claims that guests would see 'no mosquitoes' and 'never' encounter any were greatly exaggerated. 'I Get Eaten Alive' We noticed a handful of comments from past Disney World guests who said that they didn't receive any mosquito bites. However, this does not prove that there are 'no mosquitoes' on the property. On the flip side, we easily found quite a few stories from people who previously visited Disney World and received mosquito bites. In one Reddit post, a commenter said: 'My husband gets a lot on his ankles and calves.' Another person wrote: 'We did get a couple of bites from them at Animal Kingdom.' 'I get eaten alive every time I watch Illuminations at Epcot,' said u/onestraypea. 'A few years ago I had 17 bites, while my husband and daughter each had none.' Reddit user u/lukin5 added: 'It's not bad during the day, but as soon as that afternoon storm subsides, they come to party. Bring the Off [bug spray] for a good 5:00 p.m. application and you should be good to go.' Crowd of people gathering for the fireworks show in front of the Cinderella castle at Walt Disney World. (Photo by Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images) ''Almost no mosquitoes.' I'm calling bullshit,' u/Theminingdwarf said. 'My family went down there one summer and we all got bit to hell. Get this Disney propaganda outta here.' We also found Facebook comments from June 2021 with Disney World guests providing information about their mosquito bites. For example, one commenter said: 'They have a lot of prevention but it's all outside and they do still exist. I've gotten mosquito bites at Disney even just this year. Just not that many.' Another Facebook user commented: 'I've never had an issue with mosquitoes there until this last trip, last month. We all had bites!' Another added: 'I got mosquito bites while I was there lol.' There were too many reports of mosquitoes in Disney World to detail. Disney World's Fight Against Mosquitoes Disney World's past struggles to control the mosquito population have spanned decades. In 1990, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that Disney was 'worried about encephalitis-bearing mosquitoes.' At the time, they moved some resort activities indoors and that 'extra spraying hours' had been scheduled. In 2002, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Disney was engaged in a 'stealth battle' to 'keep West Nile [virus] carriers from guests.' 'Disney World has a full-service mosquito control operation and even its own 'skeeter stalker' - Eric Elbert,' the newspaper published. Every day, Elbert buttons his Oxford shirt tight at the neck and sleeves and goes into the swamps to set and retrieve traps, then back to his lab to produce the equivalent of a behind-enemy-lines warfare scouting report. He details where mosquitoes are hatching, their concentrations, their movements, and their diseases. Then he goes home. Killing [is] left to others, who perform the task without mercy. Protecting 38 million vacationers a year from disease-carrying mosquitoes in 30 square miles checkered with swamp is like raising free-range chickens on an African savanna filled with starved jackals. But Disney tries really hard. Crews spray relentlessly. Every morning, every evening. 'Our guests come to Walt Disney World to escape the realities of life, and getting bit by mosquitoes isn't conducive to that,' Disney spokeswoman Rena Callahan said. 'We work very hard to make sure that our guests have a comfortable experience and fun time.' But Disney can't kill all the pests, and so must tread a fine line. The story also mentioned that the pesticides that are sprayed simply 'reduce' the threat. Instead of spraying the pesticides near the parks to control the mosquito population, 'Disney World wages its battles along 86 miles of canals, service roads, firebreaks, power lines, fields, and fences.' It did not specify the two pesticides that were used at the time, but it did add that they were both 'considered safe by state and federal environmental authorities.' In sum, it's true that Disney World goes above and beyond with its program to keep mosquito numbers down on its property. However, this does not mean that guests will see 'no mosquitoes,' nor does it mean they'll 'never' spot one, as claimed by a number of blogs and YouTube videos. We reached out to Walt Disney World Resort to ask more about its mosquito control program and will update this story should we receive further details. | In sum, it's true that Disney World goes above and beyond with its program to keep mosquito numbers down on its property. However, this does not mean that guests will see 'no mosquitoes,' nor does it mean they'll 'never' spot one, as claimed by a number of blogs and YouTube videos. We reached out to Walt Disney World Resort to ask more about its mosquito control program and will update this story should we receive further details. | [
"09381-proof-02-disney-mosquitoes-twitter.jpg",
"09381-proof-07-magic-kingdom-crowd-scaled-e1624051752566.jpg"
] |
A video shows Afghanistan soldiers who had aided the United States being executed by the Taliban in the summer of 2021. | Contradiction | On Aug. 24, 2021, Jarome Bell, a Republican politician running for a congressional seat in Virginia, shared a disturbing video on Twitter, along with the claim that it showed a group of Afghanistan soldiers who aided the United States being executed by the Taliban. Bell wrote: 'These men assisted our troops and were left behind with over 15000 Americans. This will be Joe Biden's legacy and the democrats and some of you approve of this message.' As the video Bell posted features a genuine execution, we won't post it here. Instead, here's a screenshot of Bell's tweet. But this video is not recent, and it was not taken in Afghanistan. It was posted to Liveleak back in the spring of 2014, and supposedly shows an incident from a few months prior in Syria. The Liveleak video is no longer available (the site was dissolved in May 2021) but a contemporaneous Blogger post stated that the video showed Syrian soldiers who had been guarding a hospital in Aleppo. While we can't verify the specifics of the video, the Organization for Democracy and Freedom in Syria did release a statement in March 2014 after the video originally went viral: In the video, the men are seen kneeling on the ground with guns pointed at their head, several shouts are heard before the first man is killed with a single shot to the head. All the others are then slaughtered in cold blood one by one. Their lifeless bodies are then riddled with bullets. Commenting on the video, ODFS Director, Ribal Al-Assad said: 'Words cannot describe how disgusted I am with the actions of these rebels, how can anyone treat another human being in such a horrific way? These are people who have no respect for the sanctity of life, they are barbaric and heinous individuals who will stop at nothing to achieve their perverted aims, evidently massacre is second nature to them.' In short, this video is real but it is not related to the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. This video is from 2013, and appears to show an execution in Syria. | In short, this video is real but it is not related to the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. This video is from 2013, and appears to show an execution in Syria. | [
"09410-proof-05-jarome-bell-tweet.jpg",
"09410-proof-09-jarome-bell-tweet-2.jpg"
] |
Myanmar's 2020 election used Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic software. | Contradiction | On Feb. 1, 2021, a military coup staged in Myanmar brought back baseless conspiracy theories about election technology that spread before, during, and after the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic have since taken the issue to court, citing defamation. We previously debunked a number of conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. Dominion provides a wide variety of election services, including hardware and software. Smartmatic creates and offers 'electronic voting technology and services designed to make elections more auditable and transparent.' Despite a false rumor, no, Smartmatic does not own Dominion. On Feb. 1, 2021, two QAnon supporters posted unsupported claims about Myanmar, Dominion Voting Systems, and Smartmatic. First, @FrederickSelous posted to social media about Dominion: It claimed: 'The White House is freaking out after Myanmar military arrests political leaders for election fraud in their November 8 elections. Myanmar used Dominion Voting Systems.' The post featured pictures of former U.S. President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Aung San Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi, Mayanmar's civilian leader, was detained during the early 2021 military coup. The QAnon supporter appeared to deduce sort of malice from the dated pictures. However, they were captured during Obama's presidency in 2011 and 2012. At the time, he promised support for Myanmar from the United States. Another QAnon supporter going by the handle @MajorPatriot posted another baseless conspiracy theory. 'Look what I just found,' read the post. It pointed to a 2017 tweet by Smartmatic and appeared to indicate that the company was involved in Myanmar's elections. Both claims were false. Myanmar did not use Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, or any other machines or electronics in its election process. In 2020, Myanmar used paper ballots that were counted by hand. No electronics appeared to have been involved. Black and blue ink were accepted. Among the many interesting 'non-sensitive' materials required in the election were rope, candles, and lighters. Plastic baskets were also used for counting votes. A special fact sheet for Myanmar's 2020 general election made no mention of Dominion or Smartmatic. The detailed document, provided by STEP Democracy, described the entire 2020 electoral process. This section was about vote counting: At 4:00 PM or after the last voter has left, the polling station will be closed. The polling station officer can assign other polling station staff for counting, or s/he takes on this duty him/herself. Following persons can be present inside the polling station at the opening of the ballot box and counting of the ballot papers: - Polling Station Members. - Witnesses (Candidates, Voters, Election Agents, Agents from Political Parties, etc.) - Public (Media persons, people) - Polling Station Agents. - Election Observers if present. First, the assigned staff open the Advance Voting (in-constituency) ballot box and count the votes. Then the Pyithu Hluttaw ballot box is opened, third is Amyotha Hluttaw, fourth is State/Region Hluttaw and last is Ethnic Race Representatives. Photographs of ballot hand-counting showed the baskets, envelopes, and other materials that were pictured in the fact sheet: Mandalay, Myanmar. Nov. 8, 2020. Election officers wearing facemasks are seen counting ballot papers during the vote-counting process at the military polling station. Polling stations across Myanmar are in the process of counting the votes after the deadline for voters to cast their vote comes to an end on the Myanmar 2020 General Election day. (Photo by Kaung Zaw Hein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) The Associated Press reported that the military in Myanmar 'charged that there was massive fraud in the election - particularly with regard to voter lists - though it has not offered any proof.' No credible evidence of purported massive voter fraud was presented regarding the 2020 U.S. presidential election either. An Instagram video featured both false claims about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. It was posted on Feb. 2, 2021. It appeared to indicate that former U.S. President Donald Trump would return to the White House after a supposed upcoming military coup. The video featured the words 'the calm before the storm,' 'are you ready,' and other overly dramatic phrases. Following his presidency, Trump moved to his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Florida. At the time of the military coup in Myanmar, he was preparing for his second impeachment trial. He was charged with 'incitement of insurrection.' We reached out to both Dominion and Smartmatic for comment about the possibility of any past dealings with Myanmar. A spokesperson for Dominion told us that the company has never had any voting systems in Myanmar. Smartmatic also responded: 'Smartmatic had no involvement in Myanmar's 2020 elections. In fact, Smartmatic has never provided any election technology or services to authorities in that country. Any claim to the contrary is simply false.' In sum, Myanmar did not use Dominion Voting Systems or Smartmatic for its 2020 general election. Votes were cast and counted by hand.Recent Updates Feb. 2, 2021: We updated this story to add a statement from Smartmatic. | In sum, Myanmar did not use Dominion Voting Systems or Smartmatic for its 2020 general election. Votes were cast and counted by hand.Recent Updates Feb. 2, 2021: We updated this story to add a statement from Smartmatic. | [
"09491-proof-01-myanmar-fact-sheet-1-e1612304611114.jpg",
"09491-proof-04-GettyImages-1229547524-scaled-e1612302713672.jpg",
"09491-proof-05-myanmar-election-machines-smartmatic.jpg",
"09491-proof-11-myanmar-election-machines-dominion.jpg",
"09491-proof-13-GettyImages-1229547534-scaled-e1612301258804.jpg"
] |
A video showed a cop with a ponytail catch his wife cheating on him during a traffic stop. | Contradiction | Since at least early 2021, a video has been shared online that purportedly showed a cop catching his wife cheating on him with a man she met on Tinder. The video of what appeared to be a police officer performing a traffic stop has been viewed millions of times on TikTok and on YouTube. @hollywoodkj3 Caught in 4K 📸 ♬ Mr. Matchmaker - Dook🤫 One repost of the video from April 24 was viewed on TikTok more than 5 million times in just two weeks. Was It Real? Many of the commenters appeared to believe the video was real. For example, one of the comments read: 'I wouldn't be really mad at the guy cause he didn't know she had a husband.' More than 22,500 TikTok users liked the comment. However, the video did not show a real cop catching his wife cheating on him. It was nothing more than a fun skit. The Original Creator TikTok user Grant H. Mortenson (@granted_happiness) responded to the popular repost. 'Heyoo! This is actually my video; I both wrote the skit and played the officer in the video,' Mortenson said. Mortenson has the same ponytail in other videos on his TikTok channel. On May 7, he reposted the video in high quality with the title: 'Cop Caught Cheating Wife.' The Full Skit The skit came in two parts and featured three actors. In the first part, Mortenson asked the two people inside the car to get out and walk over to him. All of the people involved in the skit were actors. He proceeded to search the male driver, who told him that he met the woman on Tinder and that they'd been out a few times. He then told the man that she was his wife. @granted_happiness ORIGINAL: Cop Caught Cheating Wife👮🏻♀️ #caughtcheatingin4k #cheating #foryou #original #OfficerPonytail #fyp ♬ original sound - Grant H. Mortenson The second part showed the male driver leaving in the car. The cop character then left his wife on the side of the road after telling her to call her mom. He also told her that she was moving out: @granted_happiness ORIGINAL: Cop Caught Cheating Wife👮🏻♀️ #caughtcheatingin4k #cheating #foryou #original #OfficerPonytail #fyp ♬ original sound - Grant H. Mortenson In sum, the video of a cop pulling over a car and finding his cheating wife on a Tinder date was not real. See more of Mortenson's skits on his TikTok channel. | In sum, the video of a cop pulling over a car and finding his cheating wife on a Tinder date was not real. See more of Mortenson's skits on his TikTok channel. | [
"09498-proof-08-cop-catches-cheating-wife-featured.jpg"
] |
A video showed a cop with a ponytail catch his wife cheating on him during a traffic stop. | Contradiction | Since at least early 2021, a video has been shared online that purportedly showed a cop catching his wife cheating on him with a man she met on Tinder. The video of what appeared to be a police officer performing a traffic stop has been viewed millions of times on TikTok and on YouTube. @hollywoodkj3 Caught in 4K 📸 ♬ Mr. Matchmaker - Dook🤫 One repost of the video from April 24 was viewed on TikTok more than 5 million times in just two weeks. Was It Real? Many of the commenters appeared to believe the video was real. For example, one of the comments read: 'I wouldn't be really mad at the guy cause he didn't know she had a husband.' More than 22,500 TikTok users liked the comment. However, the video did not show a real cop catching his wife cheating on him. It was nothing more than a fun skit. The Original Creator TikTok user Grant H. Mortenson (@granted_happiness) responded to the popular repost. 'Heyoo! This is actually my video; I both wrote the skit and played the officer in the video,' Mortenson said. Mortenson has the same ponytail in other videos on his TikTok channel. On May 7, he reposted the video in high quality with the title: 'Cop Caught Cheating Wife.' The Full Skit The skit came in two parts and featured three actors. In the first part, Mortenson asked the two people inside the car to get out and walk over to him. All of the people involved in the skit were actors. He proceeded to search the male driver, who told him that he met the woman on Tinder and that they'd been out a few times. He then told the man that she was his wife. @granted_happiness ORIGINAL: Cop Caught Cheating Wife👮🏻♀️ #caughtcheatingin4k #cheating #foryou #original #OfficerPonytail #fyp ♬ original sound - Grant H. Mortenson The second part showed the male driver leaving in the car. The cop character then left his wife on the side of the road after telling her to call her mom. He also told her that she was moving out: @granted_happiness ORIGINAL: Cop Caught Cheating Wife👮🏻♀️ #caughtcheatingin4k #cheating #foryou #original #OfficerPonytail #fyp ♬ original sound - Grant H. Mortenson In sum, the video of a cop pulling over a car and finding his cheating wife on a Tinder date was not real. See more of Mortenson's skits on his TikTok channel. | In sum, the video of a cop pulling over a car and finding his cheating wife on a Tinder date was not real. See more of Mortenson's skits on his TikTok channel. | [
"09498-proof-08-cop-catches-cheating-wife-featured.jpg"
] |
Former President Donald Trump had an exact replica of the Oval Office built at Mar-A-Lago. | Contradiction | In May 2021, a rumor started circulating on social media that former U.S. President Donald Trump had built an exact replica of his White House Oval Office at his Florida club Mar-A-Lago. This rumor was largely based on a meme that also claimed Trump was spending his days watching old videos of his presidential rallies as well as footage from the violent aftermath of the 'Stop the Steal' event in Washington, D.C., that led to his second impeachment: The claims made in this meme are fabrications. While we don't know Trump's day-to-day schedule, there have been no credible reports that he has been obsessively watching old campaign rallies or footage of the Capitol riot. The claim that Trump had a replica Oval Office constructed in Mar-A-Lago is also unfounded. This rumor stems from a photograph posted by former White House aide Stephen Miller in April 2021. When outlets such as Express penned articles about this photograph, they used misleading titles like 'Donald Trump clones White House with his replica Oval Office at Florida home.' While there are certainly some similarities between Trump's offices at Mar-A-Lago and the White House, the former president did not construct a replica Oval Office in Florida. Here's the photograph from Miller (left) and a photograph of Trump in the Oval Office (right): Trump did bring some personal items from the Oval Office down to Mar-A-Lago. One piece of office décor found in both offices can can be seen on the right of Miller's photograph: A set of family photos. On the left of Miller's image, you can also see Trump's collection of 'Challenge Coins,' a commemorative coin that is traditionally given to people to prove membership in a certain organization or branch of the military, that were displayed in both offices. While Trump has displayed various items in both offices, this hardly qualifies as 'constructing' a duplicate or replica Oval Office. As you can see in the images above, Trump did not have an oval-shaped room constructed at Mar-A-Lago to replicate the specific dimensions of the Oval Office. He did not decorate the office with the same curtains, flags, carpets, or lights. He simply had some of the items he displayed in the Oval Office transferred to his new office in Mar-A-Lago. The only items that come close to 'duplicating' the Oval Office are Trump's desk and chair. The chair is reportedly the same chair he used in the Oval Office. Trump did not bring the Resolute Desk with him to Oval Office, but he did purchase what appears to be a 'Telluride Wood Executive Desk,' according to Politico, that somewhat resembles the historic Oval Office desk. Politico writes: DESK: While Trump couldn't take the 141-year old Resolute Desk from the Oval Office, he now has a similar-looking desk that appears to be the Telluride Wood Executive Desk from 'Hooker Furniture.' The desk currently retails for $3,600 but is currently out of stock until late next month. CHAIR: Trump used the same chair in the Oval Office, which he brought down from New York, according to a former White House official. In sum: Trump's office at Mar-A-Lago is decorated with some of the same items that he displayed in the Oval Office. The former president did not, however, build a replica of the Oval Office in Florida. | In sum: Trump's office at Mar-A-Lago is decorated with some of the same items that he displayed in the Oval Office. The former president did not, however, build a replica of the Oval Office in Florida. | [
"09539-proof-03-trump-oval-office-meme-fake.jpg",
"09539-proof-08-oval-office-comparison-2.jpg"
] |
A website revealed that CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins lives in an insane mansion. | Contradiction | In February 2021, a CNN journalist became the subject of a strange online advertisement. The ad featured a picture of CNN's Chief White House Correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, and appeared to claim that she lived in an 'insane mansion.' The full text of the ad read: '[Pics] Check Out These News Anchors Insane Mansions.' Readers who clicked the Kaitlan Collins 'insane mansions' ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article. The 98-page story was posted on the Housecoast website. Kaitlan Collins never appeared on any page. The clickbait article bore the headline: 'Even the Best Financial Advisors Cannot Believe These Dream-Like Celebrity Homes.' We all know that there are plenty of benefits associated with fame and living in luxury may be one of the most appealing. If you have ever wondered how famed personalities spend their riches, have a look at these amazing homes they are fortunate enough to own. While the relevant prices of these houses will do nothing short of shock you, there's no denying how incredibly lavish they are! The vast majority of the article featured celebrities not involved in journalism. For example, the last five pages of the story included Jenna Jameson, Jane Fonda, Bill Gates, Aaron Rogers, and Mark Zuckerberg. The misleading ad appeared to be nothing more than advertising 'arbitrage.' We found no information that indicated CNN's Kaitlan Collins lives in an 'insane mansion.' Further, journalists in the spotlight typically keep information about their homes private. On Jan. 11, 2021, CNN announced that Kaitlan Collins had been promoted to be its chief White House correspondent. The network announced that new assignments 'for its White House and Congressional correspondents' had been 'timed to the start of President Biden's Administration.' She joined the network in 2017 after previously working for the conservative website The Daily Caller. Previously, Jim Acosta held the title of chief White House correspondent during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. In sum, an online advertisement that featured Kaitlan Collins promised a list of 'news anchors insane mansions.' The resulting story never mentioned Collins, nor did the word 'insane' even pop up on any of the article's 98 pages. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, an online advertisement that featured Kaitlan Collins promised a list of 'news anchors insane mansions.' The resulting story never mentioned Collins, nor did the word 'insane' even pop up on any of the article's 98 pages. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"09606-proof-02-kaitlan-collins-insane-mansion-misleading.jpg",
"09606-proof-09-cnn-kaitlan-collins-insane-mansions-social.jpg"
] |
Police have cracked a 'housebreakers' code' by which cars or homes are marked with white Xs or other symbols for later crimes. | Contradiction | The following warning concerning a mysterious white 'X' subtly marked onto at least two vehicles in Texas was circulated online in May 2015. However, the theme of secret codes used by bands of outsiders for a range of purposes (typically criminal ones) is not new to modern lore and far predates the unusual markings spotted in Texas. I posted this yesterday on another page and I have been asked by a friend to post on my personal page so others could share it. This is my daughters truck and this white X was marked on her truck while at the Conroe Walmart yesterday (5-25-15). I have asked several LEO's as well as searched on it myself and no one seems to have any answers however several other people have posted the same white X on the same spot on the vehicle! Similar tales (each quite popular) have involved hidden markings bestowed upon the vehicles of gun shop customers and the homes of dog owners, presumably to target their owners for later acts of burglary or other untoward dealings. The seemingly mysterious 'X' markings on vehicles have simple explanations, ones that have nothing to do with criminal intentions: they're put there by manufacturers, vendors, used car dealers, auction houses, car washes, or auto repair facilities, and can indicate anything from which services or repairs a vehicle owner has requested to what types of work has already been performed on a vehicle. In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | [] |
Police have cracked a 'housebreakers' code' by which cars or homes are marked with white Xs or other symbols for later crimes. | Contradiction | The following warning concerning a mysterious white 'X' subtly marked onto at least two vehicles in Texas was circulated online in May 2015. However, the theme of secret codes used by bands of outsiders for a range of purposes (typically criminal ones) is not new to modern lore and far predates the unusual markings spotted in Texas. I posted this yesterday on another page and I have been asked by a friend to post on my personal page so others could share it. This is my daughters truck and this white X was marked on her truck while at the Conroe Walmart yesterday (5-25-15). I have asked several LEO's as well as searched on it myself and no one seems to have any answers however several other people have posted the same white X on the same spot on the vehicle! Similar tales (each quite popular) have involved hidden markings bestowed upon the vehicles of gun shop customers and the homes of dog owners, presumably to target their owners for later acts of burglary or other untoward dealings. The seemingly mysterious 'X' markings on vehicles have simple explanations, ones that have nothing to do with criminal intentions: they're put there by manufacturers, vendors, used car dealers, auction houses, car washes, or auto repair facilities, and can indicate anything from which services or repairs a vehicle owner has requested to what types of work has already been performed on a vehicle. In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | [] |
Police have cracked a 'housebreakers' code' by which cars or homes are marked with white Xs or other symbols for later crimes. | Contradiction | The following warning concerning a mysterious white 'X' subtly marked onto at least two vehicles in Texas was circulated online in May 2015. However, the theme of secret codes used by bands of outsiders for a range of purposes (typically criminal ones) is not new to modern lore and far predates the unusual markings spotted in Texas. I posted this yesterday on another page and I have been asked by a friend to post on my personal page so others could share it. This is my daughters truck and this white X was marked on her truck while at the Conroe Walmart yesterday (5-25-15). I have asked several LEO's as well as searched on it myself and no one seems to have any answers however several other people have posted the same white X on the same spot on the vehicle! Similar tales (each quite popular) have involved hidden markings bestowed upon the vehicles of gun shop customers and the homes of dog owners, presumably to target their owners for later acts of burglary or other untoward dealings. The seemingly mysterious 'X' markings on vehicles have simple explanations, ones that have nothing to do with criminal intentions: they're put there by manufacturers, vendors, used car dealers, auction houses, car washes, or auto repair facilities, and can indicate anything from which services or repairs a vehicle owner has requested to what types of work has already been performed on a vehicle. In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | In short, they're guides to assist those who fix, sell, and clean cars, not 'come get me' signals to car thieves. In any case, auto theft is overwhelmingly a crime of opportunity; hardly anyone but steal-to-order car thieves is going to bother with casing and marking cars for later boosting. Just before the warning about X marks on cars popped up in Texas in May 2015, several British tabloids reported upon a supposed housebreakers' code discovered via a tweet (and Facebook post) published by a police department in the UK: So groundbreaking was this April 2015 revelation by the Lanarkshire Police that the British press appeared to have suffered grave amnesia on the matter of new burgling innovations. Both the BBC and the Guardian had cracked the mysterious 'Da Pinchi Code' way back in 2009, and the Telegraph only got wind of the burgeoning threat of chalk symbols four years later, in 2013. Like many claims of their ilk, what the housebreaker's code warnings rest upon is claimants who believe they were targeted as potential victims due solely to unexplained markings found on the outside of their homes (or near their property, or on their vehicles) even though no evidence demonstrated any ensuing attempt was mde to burgle or rob them. These rumors typically lack any demonstrable connection between a belief in the presumed purposed of the markings and the actual intent of the persons responsible for them, or any details as to how police could have conclusively determined that symbol X was linked to the commission of crime Y. Nearly all property crime is predicated upon the desire to enrich oneself or one's interests with minimal effort, and an element missing from the belief that thieves pre-mark homes to rob is one that fails to sufficiently explain where the added value in such a proposition lies. It's possible to burgle a home without first essaying a legend detailing its contents and the temperament of its occupants, an unpleasant reality of day-to-day life that plays out with unfortunate frequency. As mentioned in one of our articles about a similar legend, gangs of criminals working together can simply jot down the addresses of their targets and share them by a variety of means; there is no benefit or advantage to risking exposure and foul-ups by physically marking homes: Targeting homes for illicit purposes by marking them with some exterior symbol is unnecessarily inefficient: it requires time and effort to visit homes and mark them, it risks exposure from onlookers who might notice and call attention to the activity and discover its purpose, and it risks mistakes over a shaky dependence on markings that are too easily removed (accidentally or purposely) by residents or eradicated by weather, or overlooked by those supposed to be finding them afterwards. Yet all of these vagaries can be easily avoided in one simple way: just jotting down the addresses of the homes of interest. There's no good reason for bad guys to mark a home with some form of symbol as a method for being able to find and return to it later when they could more easily and safely accomplish the same thing simply by recording its address. The marking of homes to identify them as targets for future activity makes sense only if the markings and the follow-up activity are being performed by different groups who are prevented by time and distance from communicating with each other between those two steps. But in today's world, where information such as an address list can be communicated almost instantaneously by e-mail or text message, and anyone with a cell phone can be reached virtually anywhere at any time, there are no such barriers. Such markings might be practical if the group creating them were doing so for the benefit of persons unknown to them (as in the case of so-called hobo signs), but that scenario makes little sense within a premise of organized criminal activity: crooks have little motivation to expend effort identifying prime targets for the benefit of other crooks unknown to them. The scant few incidents of this alleged form of crime described in UK media reports generally comprised folks simply reporting their impressions that they'd been targeted: In one case, an elderly couple in Devon were inundated by a large number of dodgy tradesmen calling at their home over a period of five years. A subsequent investigation found that a rogue builder who had previously worked at the property and overcharged the couple by £4,000 had left a pattern of blocks code to tip off other cowboy traders that the owners were a vulnerable target. The article included no information about who discovered this shibboleth and identified its meaning, nor did the elderly couple describe enduring a break-in at their home - the pair were simply targeted by an unspecified number of annoying door-to-door salesmen over a period of years, an unpleasant experienced shared by many residents living in unmarked homes. While it's possible the 'pattern of blocks' could have been meant to signal other shady dealers of an easy mark, simple shoddy worksmanship is a much more likely explanation. Postscript: In January 2016, BBC News reported that the previously mysterious signs associated with the so-called 'Da Pinci Code' were actually related to planned utility work. | [] |
An animated image captures a real-life road rage incident. | Contradiction | An animated GIF image purportedly showing a real-life road rage incident (in which occupants of one vehicle cowed the others by waving an automatic rifle at them) has been circulating on social media for several years, frequently attached to titles such as 'that's one way to stop road rage.' Although the image is often mistakenly claimed to depict an actual occurrence of road rage, it was actually taken from a 2009 Russian television series titled Desantura (Десантура): 'Nobody except us!' It sounds like that is their motto. These bold and desperate guys are able to survive in the most difficult and dangerous situations owing to their advanced combat skills of combat, able to fight not only on the battlefield but also behind enemy lines. They have all the necessary knowledge and skills to stand up against any opponent. The scene portrayed in the above-displayed image can be viewed in fuller context here: | An animated GIF image purportedly showing a real-life road rage incident (in which occupants of one vehicle cowed the others by waving an automatic rifle at them) has been circulating on social media for several years, frequently attached to titles such as 'that's one way to stop road rage.' Although the image is often mistakenly claimed to depict an actual occurrence of road rage, it was actually taken from a 2009 Russian television series titled Desantura (Десантура): 'Nobody except us!' It sounds like that is their motto. These bold and desperate guys are able to survive in the most difficult and dangerous situations owing to their advanced combat skills of combat, able to fight not only on the battlefield but also behind enemy lines. They have all the necessary knowledge and skills to stand up against any opponent. The scene portrayed in the above-displayed image can be viewed in fuller context here: | [] |
Winston Churchill once said: 'A nation that forgets its past has no future. | Contradiction | On June 18, 2020, a Facebook account posted a meme that claimed Winston Churchill once said: 'A nation that forgets its past has no future.' According to newspaper articles printed in 1983 and 2021, both from The Santa Fe New Mexican, the quote even appeared with attribution to Churchill on the side of an archives building in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The sign can be seen on Google Street View. The Viral Meme The Facebook post in question has been shared close to 1 million times since it was first posted on June 18. By September 2021, the post had been shared 982,000 times. The meme originally was posted in the aftermath of the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd, a Black man who died after then-Officer Derek Chauvin, who is white, 'knelt on his neck, pinning him to the ground for about 9 1/2 minutes.' Chauvin was later convicted on murder and manslaughter charges. In the four weeks between the time that Floyd was killed and the day the Facebook meme was posted, Smithsonian Magazine reported: 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' This appeared to be what the Facebook account was referencing when posting the purported Churchill quote, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' This was further confirmed after a study of the Facebook user's public-facing posts, which included content riddled with baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. We also found a meme on the day after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that said: 'If you're disgusted now, but you weren't this summer when cities were literally burning, you're the worst kind of hypocrite.' Looking for the Quote As for the supposed Churchill remark, we were unable to find any newspapers or books that confirmed him as having uttered those exact words. While a small number of opinion pieces and 'letter to the editor' articles in newspapers have featured the quote since at least the 1960s, none of the stories provided further information on where the remark originated. The former British prime minister was born on Nov. 30, 1874, and died on Jan. 24, 1965. Winston Churchill arriving at number 10 Downing Street London for a cabinet meeting in 1940. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images) We found some evidence of Churchill saying phrases that were potentially similar to the quote in the viral meme. For example, in 1985, the Rutland Daily Herald reported a story about remembrances of World War II and the Holocaust. In the article, the author wrote: '[George] Santyana, philosopher-historian, observed that a nation which forgets its past is doomed to relive it in the future.' The sentence referred to a quote from the 1905 book, 'The Life of Reason or the Phases of Human Progress,' in which Santyana wrote: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' According to the International Churchill Society, 'in a 1948 speech to the House of Commons, Churchill paraphrased Santayana when he said, 'those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.'' A different quote had Churchill using the words 'doomed to repeat it,' according to Virginia Tech's College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. However, this was all fairly different from 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Finding the Answer In order to dig deeper and verify whether Churchill actually said 'a nation that forgets its past has no future,' we contacted America's National Churchill Museum. In an email, Lena Leuci, a collections assistant for the museum, said it 'appears that there is no written record that Churchill ever said, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.'' However, she added: 'He did strongly believe in (and practice) the study of history.' Winston Churchill gives his famous 'V for Victory' sign while addressing crowds from the balcony of City Hall in Sheffield, during a tour of the Midlands and North of England, 6-8 November 1941. (Photo by Capt. Horton/ Imperial War Museums via Getty Images) Leuci also directed us to Richard M. Langworth, a senior fellow with the Hillsdale College Churchill Project. Langworth, a historian of Churchill's life, has published books on the famous historical figure, including writing about remarks he did and did not make. According to an article on Langworth's website, the same quote that appeared in the Facebook meme was 'possibly muddled' from a real Churchill remark from his 'Finest Hour' speech on June 18, 1940: 'If we open a quarrel between the past and the present we shall find that we have lost the future.' Langworth also wrote that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz attempted to invoke Churchill when uttering a similar quote in 2016, but missed the mark on one of the words. Cruz said 'risk the future' instead of 'lost the future.' Langworth argued: 'Loss is worse than risk. Cruz was probably fed the line by some haphazard researcher.' He continued: Cruz, moreover, missed the spirit in which the Churchill remark was made. In 1940 Churchill was defending the all-party coalition he had brought together in defense of the nation. One of those parties (Labour) was intent on persecuting the Conservative and some Liberal politicians who had led Britain to its current state. There was nothing to gain in that, Churchill said, and he had as good a reason to blame the Conservatives as anyone on the Labour side. For example, Labour had steadfastly supported appeasing Hitler until 1939, and had voted against conscription. Like the Labour critics of 1940, Sen. Cruz seems to spend much of his time opening quarrels between the past and present. In sum, while there is no shortage of famous and authentic quotes from the former British prime minister, we found no record of Churchill ever saying the words, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Sources America's National Churchill Museum | Winston Churchill Museum in Fulton, MO. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/. 'AZ Quotes: A Cornucopia of Things Churchill Never Said.' Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. 'Cruz: Minor Misquote, Major Misinterpretation.' Richard M. Langworth, 16 Apr. 2016, https://richardlangworth.com/cruz. 'Demolition of Halpin Building a Signpost.' Santa Fe New Mexican, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/demolition-of-halpin-building-a-signpost/article_51fbcc2c-41fa-11ea-985b-af28b4c1860b.html. 'Did Alexander Fleming's Father Save Winston Churchill from Drowning?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-goes-around/. 'Did Churchill Say 'People With Contempt for Their Heritage Have Lost Faith in Themselves'?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-confederate-monument/. 'Did Winston Churchill Say 'The Fascists of the Future Will Call Themselves Anti-Fascists?'' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascists-called-anti-fascists-quote/. 'Ex-Minneapolis Cop Derek Chauvin Found Guilty In George Floyd's Killing.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/04/20/live-updates-chauvin-verdict/. 'FACT CHECK: Winston Churchill on the Arts.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-the-arts/. 'Folger Library - Churchill's Shakespeare.' International Churchill Society, 21 Oct. 2018, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/folger-library-churchills-shakespeare/. 'George Santayana | Spanish-American Philosopher.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Santayana. History Repeating. https:////liberalarts.vt.edu/content/liberalarts_vt_edu/en/magazine/2017/history-repeating.html. 'Jan. 6 Capitol Riots Fact Checks and News from Snopes.com.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/jan-6-capitol-protests/. Langworth, Richard M. Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. Illustrated edition, McFarland, 2017. 'Letters: American voters sent troops to Beirut.' 6 Nov 1983, 4 - The Santa Fe New Mexican at Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/583157315/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22&match=1. Leuci, Lena. America's National Churchill Museum. 22 Sept. 2021. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Nora McGreevy. 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confederate-monuments-across-country-coming-down-180975052/. 'Moment of Silence Marks Year Since George Floyd's Death.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/05/25/moment-of-silence-marks-year-since-george-floyd's-death/. 'Remembering World War II: Malmedy to Katyn.' Porter, Joe. 22 Apr 1985, 15 - Rutland Daily Herald at Newspapers.com.' Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/534632008/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22%20churchill&match=1. Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Or, The Phases of Human Progress: Introduction, and Reason in Common Sense. C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 'The 2020 Election Collection: Fact-Checking the Presidential Race.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-collection/. 'Was the First Known Use of 'OMG' Written in a Letter to Churchill?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omg-winston-churchill/. 'Was Winston Churchill Born in a Ladies' Room During a Dance?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-born-dance/. 'Winston Churchill | Biography, World War II, Quotes, Books, & Facts.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill. 'Winston Churchill on Caring What Other People Think of You.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-what-people-think/. 'Winston Churchill on Islam.' Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/. 'Winston Churchill on Muslims and Minority Rights.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-muslims-and-minority-rights/. | In sum, while there is no shortage of famous and authentic quotes from the former British prime minister, we found no record of Churchill ever saying the words, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Sources America's National Churchill Museum | Winston Churchill Museum in Fulton, MO. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/. 'AZ Quotes: A Cornucopia of Things Churchill Never Said.' Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. 'Cruz: Minor Misquote, Major Misinterpretation.' Richard M. Langworth, 16 Apr. 2016, https://richardlangworth.com/cruz. 'Demolition of Halpin Building a Signpost.' Santa Fe New Mexican, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/demolition-of-halpin-building-a-signpost/article_51fbcc2c-41fa-11ea-985b-af28b4c1860b.html. 'Did Alexander Fleming's Father Save Winston Churchill from Drowning?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-goes-around/. 'Did Churchill Say 'People With Contempt for Their Heritage Have Lost Faith in Themselves'?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-confederate-monument/. 'Did Winston Churchill Say 'The Fascists of the Future Will Call Themselves Anti-Fascists?'' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascists-called-anti-fascists-quote/. 'Ex-Minneapolis Cop Derek Chauvin Found Guilty In George Floyd's Killing.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/04/20/live-updates-chauvin-verdict/. 'FACT CHECK: Winston Churchill on the Arts.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-the-arts/. 'Folger Library - Churchill's Shakespeare.' International Churchill Society, 21 Oct. 2018, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/folger-library-churchills-shakespeare/. 'George Santayana | Spanish-American Philosopher.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Santayana. History Repeating. https:////liberalarts.vt.edu/content/liberalarts_vt_edu/en/magazine/2017/history-repeating.html. 'Jan. 6 Capitol Riots Fact Checks and News from Snopes.com.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/jan-6-capitol-protests/. Langworth, Richard M. Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. Illustrated edition, McFarland, 2017. 'Letters: American voters sent troops to Beirut.' 6 Nov 1983, 4 - The Santa Fe New Mexican at Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/583157315/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22&match=1. Leuci, Lena. America's National Churchill Museum. 22 Sept. 2021. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Nora McGreevy. 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confederate-monuments-across-country-coming-down-180975052/. 'Moment of Silence Marks Year Since George Floyd's Death.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/05/25/moment-of-silence-marks-year-since-george-floyd's-death/. 'Remembering World War II: Malmedy to Katyn.' Porter, Joe. 22 Apr 1985, 15 - Rutland Daily Herald at Newspapers.com.' Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/534632008/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22%20churchill&match=1. Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Or, The Phases of Human Progress: Introduction, and Reason in Common Sense. C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 'The 2020 Election Collection: Fact-Checking the Presidential Race.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-collection/. 'Was the First Known Use of 'OMG' Written in a Letter to Churchill?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omg-winston-churchill/. 'Was Winston Churchill Born in a Ladies' Room During a Dance?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-born-dance/. 'Winston Churchill | Biography, World War II, Quotes, Books, & Facts.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill. 'Winston Churchill on Caring What Other People Think of You.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-what-people-think/. 'Winston Churchill on Islam.' Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/. 'Winston Churchill on Muslims and Minority Rights.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-muslims-and-minority-rights/. | [
"09684-proof-02-churchill-speech-v.jpg",
"09684-proof-03-churchill-street-walk.jpg",
"09684-proof-05-winston-churchill-past-quote.jpg",
"09684-proof-12-churchill-desk-quote.jpg"
] |
Winston Churchill once said: 'A nation that forgets its past has no future. | Contradiction | On June 18, 2020, a Facebook account posted a meme that claimed Winston Churchill once said: 'A nation that forgets its past has no future.' According to newspaper articles printed in 1983 and 2021, both from The Santa Fe New Mexican, the quote even appeared with attribution to Churchill on the side of an archives building in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The sign can be seen on Google Street View. The Viral Meme The Facebook post in question has been shared close to 1 million times since it was first posted on June 18. By September 2021, the post had been shared 982,000 times. The meme originally was posted in the aftermath of the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd, a Black man who died after then-Officer Derek Chauvin, who is white, 'knelt on his neck, pinning him to the ground for about 9 1/2 minutes.' Chauvin was later convicted on murder and manslaughter charges. In the four weeks between the time that Floyd was killed and the day the Facebook meme was posted, Smithsonian Magazine reported: 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' This appeared to be what the Facebook account was referencing when posting the purported Churchill quote, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' This was further confirmed after a study of the Facebook user's public-facing posts, which included content riddled with baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. We also found a meme on the day after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that said: 'If you're disgusted now, but you weren't this summer when cities were literally burning, you're the worst kind of hypocrite.' Looking for the Quote As for the supposed Churchill remark, we were unable to find any newspapers or books that confirmed him as having uttered those exact words. While a small number of opinion pieces and 'letter to the editor' articles in newspapers have featured the quote since at least the 1960s, none of the stories provided further information on where the remark originated. The former British prime minister was born on Nov. 30, 1874, and died on Jan. 24, 1965. Winston Churchill arriving at number 10 Downing Street London for a cabinet meeting in 1940. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images) We found some evidence of Churchill saying phrases that were potentially similar to the quote in the viral meme. For example, in 1985, the Rutland Daily Herald reported a story about remembrances of World War II and the Holocaust. In the article, the author wrote: '[George] Santyana, philosopher-historian, observed that a nation which forgets its past is doomed to relive it in the future.' The sentence referred to a quote from the 1905 book, 'The Life of Reason or the Phases of Human Progress,' in which Santyana wrote: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' According to the International Churchill Society, 'in a 1948 speech to the House of Commons, Churchill paraphrased Santayana when he said, 'those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.'' A different quote had Churchill using the words 'doomed to repeat it,' according to Virginia Tech's College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. However, this was all fairly different from 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Finding the Answer In order to dig deeper and verify whether Churchill actually said 'a nation that forgets its past has no future,' we contacted America's National Churchill Museum. In an email, Lena Leuci, a collections assistant for the museum, said it 'appears that there is no written record that Churchill ever said, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.'' However, she added: 'He did strongly believe in (and practice) the study of history.' Winston Churchill gives his famous 'V for Victory' sign while addressing crowds from the balcony of City Hall in Sheffield, during a tour of the Midlands and North of England, 6-8 November 1941. (Photo by Capt. Horton/ Imperial War Museums via Getty Images) Leuci also directed us to Richard M. Langworth, a senior fellow with the Hillsdale College Churchill Project. Langworth, a historian of Churchill's life, has published books on the famous historical figure, including writing about remarks he did and did not make. According to an article on Langworth's website, the same quote that appeared in the Facebook meme was 'possibly muddled' from a real Churchill remark from his 'Finest Hour' speech on June 18, 1940: 'If we open a quarrel between the past and the present we shall find that we have lost the future.' Langworth also wrote that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz attempted to invoke Churchill when uttering a similar quote in 2016, but missed the mark on one of the words. Cruz said 'risk the future' instead of 'lost the future.' Langworth argued: 'Loss is worse than risk. Cruz was probably fed the line by some haphazard researcher.' He continued: Cruz, moreover, missed the spirit in which the Churchill remark was made. In 1940 Churchill was defending the all-party coalition he had brought together in defense of the nation. One of those parties (Labour) was intent on persecuting the Conservative and some Liberal politicians who had led Britain to its current state. There was nothing to gain in that, Churchill said, and he had as good a reason to blame the Conservatives as anyone on the Labour side. For example, Labour had steadfastly supported appeasing Hitler until 1939, and had voted against conscription. Like the Labour critics of 1940, Sen. Cruz seems to spend much of his time opening quarrels between the past and present. In sum, while there is no shortage of famous and authentic quotes from the former British prime minister, we found no record of Churchill ever saying the words, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Sources America's National Churchill Museum | Winston Churchill Museum in Fulton, MO. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/. 'AZ Quotes: A Cornucopia of Things Churchill Never Said.' Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. 'Cruz: Minor Misquote, Major Misinterpretation.' Richard M. Langworth, 16 Apr. 2016, https://richardlangworth.com/cruz. 'Demolition of Halpin Building a Signpost.' Santa Fe New Mexican, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/demolition-of-halpin-building-a-signpost/article_51fbcc2c-41fa-11ea-985b-af28b4c1860b.html. 'Did Alexander Fleming's Father Save Winston Churchill from Drowning?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-goes-around/. 'Did Churchill Say 'People With Contempt for Their Heritage Have Lost Faith in Themselves'?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-confederate-monument/. 'Did Winston Churchill Say 'The Fascists of the Future Will Call Themselves Anti-Fascists?'' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascists-called-anti-fascists-quote/. 'Ex-Minneapolis Cop Derek Chauvin Found Guilty In George Floyd's Killing.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/04/20/live-updates-chauvin-verdict/. 'FACT CHECK: Winston Churchill on the Arts.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-the-arts/. 'Folger Library - Churchill's Shakespeare.' International Churchill Society, 21 Oct. 2018, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/folger-library-churchills-shakespeare/. 'George Santayana | Spanish-American Philosopher.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Santayana. History Repeating. https:////liberalarts.vt.edu/content/liberalarts_vt_edu/en/magazine/2017/history-repeating.html. 'Jan. 6 Capitol Riots Fact Checks and News from Snopes.com.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/jan-6-capitol-protests/. Langworth, Richard M. Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. Illustrated edition, McFarland, 2017. 'Letters: American voters sent troops to Beirut.' 6 Nov 1983, 4 - The Santa Fe New Mexican at Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/583157315/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22&match=1. Leuci, Lena. America's National Churchill Museum. 22 Sept. 2021. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Nora McGreevy. 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confederate-monuments-across-country-coming-down-180975052/. 'Moment of Silence Marks Year Since George Floyd's Death.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/05/25/moment-of-silence-marks-year-since-george-floyd's-death/. 'Remembering World War II: Malmedy to Katyn.' Porter, Joe. 22 Apr 1985, 15 - Rutland Daily Herald at Newspapers.com.' Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/534632008/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22%20churchill&match=1. Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Or, The Phases of Human Progress: Introduction, and Reason in Common Sense. C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 'The 2020 Election Collection: Fact-Checking the Presidential Race.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-collection/. 'Was the First Known Use of 'OMG' Written in a Letter to Churchill?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omg-winston-churchill/. 'Was Winston Churchill Born in a Ladies' Room During a Dance?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-born-dance/. 'Winston Churchill | Biography, World War II, Quotes, Books, & Facts.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill. 'Winston Churchill on Caring What Other People Think of You.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-what-people-think/. 'Winston Churchill on Islam.' Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/. 'Winston Churchill on Muslims and Minority Rights.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-muslims-and-minority-rights/. | In sum, while there is no shortage of famous and authentic quotes from the former British prime minister, we found no record of Churchill ever saying the words, 'a nation that forgets its past has no future.' Sources America's National Churchill Museum | Winston Churchill Museum in Fulton, MO. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/. 'AZ Quotes: A Cornucopia of Things Churchill Never Said.' Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. Richard M. Langworth, 6 Sept. 2018, https://richardlangworth.com/az-quotes-mangles-churchills-words. 'Cruz: Minor Misquote, Major Misinterpretation.' Richard M. Langworth, 16 Apr. 2016, https://richardlangworth.com/cruz. 'Demolition of Halpin Building a Signpost.' Santa Fe New Mexican, https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/demolition-of-halpin-building-a-signpost/article_51fbcc2c-41fa-11ea-985b-af28b4c1860b.html. 'Did Alexander Fleming's Father Save Winston Churchill from Drowning?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-goes-around/. 'Did Churchill Say 'People With Contempt for Their Heritage Have Lost Faith in Themselves'?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-confederate-monument/. 'Did Winston Churchill Say 'The Fascists of the Future Will Call Themselves Anti-Fascists?'' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascists-called-anti-fascists-quote/. 'Ex-Minneapolis Cop Derek Chauvin Found Guilty In George Floyd's Killing.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/04/20/live-updates-chauvin-verdict/. 'FACT CHECK: Winston Churchill on the Arts.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-the-arts/. 'Folger Library - Churchill's Shakespeare.' International Churchill Society, 21 Oct. 2018, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/folger-library-churchills-shakespeare/. 'George Santayana | Spanish-American Philosopher.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Santayana. History Repeating. https:////liberalarts.vt.edu/content/liberalarts_vt_edu/en/magazine/2017/history-repeating.html. 'Jan. 6 Capitol Riots Fact Checks and News from Snopes.com.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/jan-6-capitol-protests/. Langworth, Richard M. Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. Illustrated edition, McFarland, 2017. 'Letters: American voters sent troops to Beirut.' 6 Nov 1983, 4 - The Santa Fe New Mexican at Newspapers.com. Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/583157315/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22&match=1. Leuci, Lena. America's National Churchill Museum. 22 Sept. 2021. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Nora McGreevy. 'Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the Country.' Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confederate-monuments-across-country-coming-down-180975052/. 'Moment of Silence Marks Year Since George Floyd's Death.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/05/25/moment-of-silence-marks-year-since-george-floyd's-death/. 'Remembering World War II: Malmedy to Katyn.' Porter, Joe. 22 Apr 1985, 15 - Rutland Daily Herald at Newspapers.com.' Newspapers.com, http://www.newspapers.com/image/534632008/?terms=%22a%20nation%20that%20forgets%20its%20past%22%20churchill&match=1. Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Or, The Phases of Human Progress: Introduction, and Reason in Common Sense. C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 'The 2020 Election Collection: Fact-Checking the Presidential Race.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-collection/. 'Was the First Known Use of 'OMG' Written in a Letter to Churchill?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omg-winston-churchill/. 'Was Winston Churchill Born in a Ladies' Room During a Dance?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-born-dance/. 'Winston Churchill | Biography, World War II, Quotes, Books, & Facts.' Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill. 'Winston Churchill on Caring What Other People Think of You.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-what-people-think/. 'Winston Churchill on Islam.' Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/. 'Winston Churchill on Muslims and Minority Rights.' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/winston-churchill-on-muslims-and-minority-rights/. | [
"09684-proof-02-churchill-speech-v.jpg",
"09684-proof-03-churchill-street-walk.jpg",
"09684-proof-05-winston-churchill-past-quote.jpg",
"09684-proof-12-churchill-desk-quote.jpg"
] |
A July 2020 letter purportedly sent by the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) was accurate in stating that any retailer or manufacturer - including those operating from homes - could be sued for selling or creating COVID-19 protective face masks that were not medically approved, defective, or without proper labeling. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits. Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under 'Ohio Consumer Laws' individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their home You can also bring suit if selling a medical device without license You can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994US You can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be 'wary of its contents': We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice. Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney general's office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are 'critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers.' The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements: 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the product's intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
A July 2020 letter purportedly sent by the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) was accurate in stating that any retailer or manufacturer - including those operating from homes - could be sued for selling or creating COVID-19 protective face masks that were not medically approved, defective, or without proper labeling. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits. Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under 'Ohio Consumer Laws' individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their home You can also bring suit if selling a medical device without license You can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994US You can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be 'wary of its contents': We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice. Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney general's office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are 'critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers.' The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements: 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the product's intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
A July 2020 letter purportedly sent by the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) was accurate in stating that any retailer or manufacturer - including those operating from homes - could be sued for selling or creating COVID-19 protective face masks that were not medically approved, defective, or without proper labeling. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a statewide mask mandate starting July 23, 2020, amidst a rise in COVID-19 cases in the region, online rumors suggested any mask manufacturers, including those selling masks from home, were at risk of facing lawsuits. Snopes readers alerted us to the circulation of the above-displayed letter purportedly from the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA), printed on an American Bar Association (ABA) letterhead. Dated July 19, 2020, the letter claimed that under 'Ohio Consumer Laws' individuals could bring a lawsuit against establishments selling or manufacturing masks without licenses or warning labels, including those selling out of their homes, especially if wearers got lung damage. The letter, full of grammatical errors and deprived of punctuation, stated: Under Ohio Consumer Laws you can now bring lawsuit against any retail establishment selling or manufacturing Face Masks or Facial Coverings for the purpose virus protection You can now file lawsuits against anyone selling a facial covering that has not been Medically Approved to filter contagious diseases. This includes any Homemade or Factory made mask With the rise in lung damage caused by pleurisy you can Legally sue for Medical Damages and or selling a Medical Device without license Any mask sold without proper warning labeling sewn into the fabric will be considered in violation, you can also file a mislabeled or not FDA approved lawsuit You can also pursue anyone selling face masks out of their home You can also bring suit if selling a medical device without license You can also bring suit for Illegal Monetary Sales and failure to disclose income under IRS 254-70994US You can also now bring suit against any small business that knowingly sells a defective face covering that causes lung damage We believe these lawsuits will be very lucrative moving forward We learned that the letter attribution was fake and its contents were suspect. In a statement on their Facebook page, the OSBA said they did not issue a letter and readers should be 'wary of its contents': We reached out to the OSBA who would not comment on the contents of the letter because as an organization they refrain from giving legal advice. Snopes also reached out to the Ohio attorney general's office about the information in the letter. A representative confirmed that under Ohio law consumers can bring lawsuits against suppliers for unfair and deceptive practices, but much of what constitutes a violation relies on court interpretation. According to the Ohio Revised Code, such deceptive practices include: That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not [...] It is likely that this applies to any mask manufacturers that make deceptive promises about the quality of their product(s) and the level of protection the product(s) provide. DeWine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended the use of homemade and non-medical grade masks in addition to practicing social distancing. The CDC stated that surgical masks or respirators are 'critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers.' The Ohio state and federal governments have shared recommendations for do-it-yourself (DIY) or homemade masks without any requirement for a license or warning labels. Consumer protection laws may apply to people selling these homemade masks without affixed labels, but the actual legal implications remain unclear given government recommendations. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulates masks used for medical purposes only. In April 2020, when health care providers in the U.S. reportedly did not have access to enough personal protective equipment, including masks, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for face masks used by the general public and in health care settings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In short, this EUA required that face masks should be labeled accurately and their use not be misrepresented. Authorized masks were to meet the following requirements: 1. The product is labeled accurately to describe the product as a face mask and includes a list of the body contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); 2. The product is labeled accurately so that it does not claim to be intended for use as a surgical mask or to provide liquid barrier protection; 3. The product labeling includes recommendations against use in a clinical setting where the infection risk level through inhalation exposure is high; 4. The product is not labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the product's intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction; 5. The product is not labeled as a respiratory protective device, and therefore should not be used for particulate filtration; and 6. The product is not labeled for use in high risk aerosol generating procedures. In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, although the above-displayed letter was fake, it is possible that consumer protection laws that apply to all kinds of manufacturers would also apply to mask manufacturing, even though its interpretation in situations involving homemade masks is unclear. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
A photograph shows Aracely Henriquez, a woman who was allegedly assaulted by George Floyd in a robbery. | Contradiction | In June 2020, as protests against police violence and racial injustice continued across the U.S. following the killing of George Floyd, a Black man who died while in police custody in Minneapolis, a photograph started to circulate on social media. The picture supposedly showed a woman named Aracely Henriquez, along with the false claim that Floyd once 'brutally' assaulted her in a robbery. This is not a picture of Henriquez. Before we explain, we should note the police encounter that resulted in Floyd's death in May 2020 began with a report about a counterfeit $20 bill passed at a store, not with an arrest warrant or an investigation into Floyd's alleged criminal history. Furthermore, the claims made in this meme are either exaggerated or outright fabricated. While Floyd was indeed arrested for his involvement in a home robbery in 2007 (we conducted a detailed analysis of Floyd's criminal record, including the robbery from 2007, in this article), no evidence suggests that Henriquez was pregnant, or that Floyd threatened to kill her baby. Henriquez was injured during the incident, though the police report says the injuries were inflicted by another man, not Floyd. But the above-displayed image does not illustrate the extent of her injuries because the picture isn't of her. This is actually a photograph of Andrea Sicignano, a student who was reportedly assaulted and raped in Madrid in 2018. Sicignano posted these images of herself to her Facebook page, along with a message detailing her attack. The Spanish news outlet El Pais reported: A 27-year-old student living in Madrid was attacked and raped by a man two weekends ago close to the bus station in the Aluche neighborhood in the south of the capital, according to sources from police headquarters. Andrea Sicignano, who has been living in Madrid for the past six months, described via a public post on her Facebook account what happened to her as she returned home from a night out with a friend. [...] 'It's unclear exactly what happened next, but as soon as I started to realize I could be in danger, I tried to leave. But this man became forceful and violent towards me,' she goes on. 'As I fought, he started to beat me. I was screaming and fighting with all of the power I could muster. I desperately tried to reach for my phone but he called out in Spanish, 'I have your phone, you can't call anyone.' [...] 'I was sure he was going to kill me,' she continues. 'Eventually I closed my eyes. With the hope that he would stop beating me, I pretended to be dead. I prayed that when I opened my eyes he would be gone. I don't know how much time passed before I finally opened my eyes, but when I did, he had disappeared.' Finally, she writes: 'He raped me.' In short, the above-displayed meme truly features a photograph of a woman who was brutally assaulted. The woman depicted, however, is not Henriquez, and the assault described in the meme is in no way connected to Floyd. This meme also misstates, exaggerates, and fabricates details about Floyd's 2007 robbery arrest. Readers can get a more in-depth look at his criminal record here. | In short, the above-displayed meme truly features a photograph of a woman who was brutally assaulted. The woman depicted, however, is not Henriquez, and the assault described in the meme is in no way connected to Floyd. This meme also misstates, exaggerates, and fabricates details about Floyd's 2007 robbery arrest. Readers can get a more in-depth look at his criminal record here. | [
"09957-proof-11-MISCAPTIONED.jpg"
] |
The Weather Channel's Jim Cantore was caught on video faking the severity of Hurricane Ida. | Contradiction | On Aug. 29, 2021, before Hurricane Ida was downgraded to a tropical storm, a TikTok video and its commenters purported that The Weather Channel correspondent Jim Cantore was caught 'faking it' after being 'photo bombed.' In the video, he stood bracing against winds near an overturned dumpster on a street corner in New Orleans, Louisiana, while a bystander nonchalantly stands by. A Twitter video, meanwhile, showed a man casually doing a cartwheel behind Cantore as he braced himself in the winds. @jerseyshore65 #SmartfoodClub #hurricane #news #weather #weather #wtf #idolface ♬ original sound - Live🌞Love 🌴Laugh🐚 The top comments were from viewers who apparently did not understand the context of the dumpster video. The top comment said: 'This is why we don't trust the news.' Another remarked: 'They can't even tell the truth about the weather!' A third comment read: 'Just like the government misleading on Covid.' Yet another top comment also mentioned the media: 'Do we see the problem with the media yet?' The man doing a cartwheel behind Cantore also received quite a bit of attention on social media. Lmao weather man is fighting for his life meanwhile dude in the background is doing his best @KingRicochet impression #HurricaneIda #Hurricane_Ida pic.twitter.com/OgCuBRYr6L - The Bionic Ankle (@TheBionicAnkle) August 29, 2021 The cartwheel video was received more in humor than the TikTok video. The Twitter user above did not criticize Cantore as the commenters on TikTok did. As for the TikTok video, Cantore was not caught 'faking' the wind speeds of Hurricane Ida, nor did the person who did a cartwheel or 'photo bombed' him prove anything strange was at play by The Weather Channel correspondent. Further, the overturned dumpster was a powerful example of the winds that day. Hurricane Ida became as strong as a Category 4 storm when it first made landfall in Louisiana, reaching wind speeds of around 150 mph. The truth of the matter is that Cantore was stepping into an alley between buildings to show viewers the power of Ida's wind speeds. The alley was offscreen to the right, as can be seen on Google Street View. In both videos, Cantore was standing next to the New Orleans Marriott Hotel on Canal Street. The man standing in the background was simply behind the cover of a building, shielding him from most of the winds. During Cantore's hours of coverage on the street corner, he often stepped back toward his camera crew, who were situated behind cover against a building and under an awning for the Creole House Restaurant & Oyster Bar. This allowed him to also be shielded from the mighty winds that were rushing down the alley. The Weather Channel posted a video on Facebook that showed Cantore walk away from the alley, which in essence debunked the idea that he and his crew were doing something misleading. It also showed the power of the winds that knocked over the dumpster. In sum, the people who 'photo bombed' Cantore, whether by cartwheel or by casually standing in the background, did not prove he was 'faking it.' Cantore was in an alley with rushing winds, while all of the other people were protected by the cover of a nearby building. For the latest on Hurricane Ida, look to our republished reporting from The Associated Press. | In sum, the people who 'photo bombed' Cantore, whether by cartwheel or by casually standing in the background, did not prove he was 'faking it.' Cantore was in an alley with rushing winds, while all of the other people were protected by the cover of a nearby building. For the latest on Hurricane Ida, look to our republished reporting from The Associated Press. | [
"09991-proof-04-jim-cantore-cartwheel.jpg"
] |
The Weather Channel's Jim Cantore was caught on video faking the severity of Hurricane Ida. | Contradiction | On Aug. 29, 2021, before Hurricane Ida was downgraded to a tropical storm, a TikTok video and its commenters purported that The Weather Channel correspondent Jim Cantore was caught 'faking it' after being 'photo bombed.' In the video, he stood bracing against winds near an overturned dumpster on a street corner in New Orleans, Louisiana, while a bystander nonchalantly stands by. A Twitter video, meanwhile, showed a man casually doing a cartwheel behind Cantore as he braced himself in the winds. @jerseyshore65 #SmartfoodClub #hurricane #news #weather #weather #wtf #idolface ♬ original sound - Live🌞Love 🌴Laugh🐚 The top comments were from viewers who apparently did not understand the context of the dumpster video. The top comment said: 'This is why we don't trust the news.' Another remarked: 'They can't even tell the truth about the weather!' A third comment read: 'Just like the government misleading on Covid.' Yet another top comment also mentioned the media: 'Do we see the problem with the media yet?' The man doing a cartwheel behind Cantore also received quite a bit of attention on social media. Lmao weather man is fighting for his life meanwhile dude in the background is doing his best @KingRicochet impression #HurricaneIda #Hurricane_Ida pic.twitter.com/OgCuBRYr6L - The Bionic Ankle (@TheBionicAnkle) August 29, 2021 The cartwheel video was received more in humor than the TikTok video. The Twitter user above did not criticize Cantore as the commenters on TikTok did. As for the TikTok video, Cantore was not caught 'faking' the wind speeds of Hurricane Ida, nor did the person who did a cartwheel or 'photo bombed' him prove anything strange was at play by The Weather Channel correspondent. Further, the overturned dumpster was a powerful example of the winds that day. Hurricane Ida became as strong as a Category 4 storm when it first made landfall in Louisiana, reaching wind speeds of around 150 mph. The truth of the matter is that Cantore was stepping into an alley between buildings to show viewers the power of Ida's wind speeds. The alley was offscreen to the right, as can be seen on Google Street View. In both videos, Cantore was standing next to the New Orleans Marriott Hotel on Canal Street. The man standing in the background was simply behind the cover of a building, shielding him from most of the winds. During Cantore's hours of coverage on the street corner, he often stepped back toward his camera crew, who were situated behind cover against a building and under an awning for the Creole House Restaurant & Oyster Bar. This allowed him to also be shielded from the mighty winds that were rushing down the alley. The Weather Channel posted a video on Facebook that showed Cantore walk away from the alley, which in essence debunked the idea that he and his crew were doing something misleading. It also showed the power of the winds that knocked over the dumpster. In sum, the people who 'photo bombed' Cantore, whether by cartwheel or by casually standing in the background, did not prove he was 'faking it.' Cantore was in an alley with rushing winds, while all of the other people were protected by the cover of a nearby building. For the latest on Hurricane Ida, look to our republished reporting from The Associated Press. | In sum, the people who 'photo bombed' Cantore, whether by cartwheel or by casually standing in the background, did not prove he was 'faking it.' Cantore was in an alley with rushing winds, while all of the other people were protected by the cover of a nearby building. For the latest on Hurricane Ida, look to our republished reporting from The Associated Press. | [
"09991-proof-04-jim-cantore-cartwheel.jpg"
] |
An explosion in Nashville, Tennessee, on Dec. 25, 2020, was caused by a missile or a direct-energy weapon. | Contradiction | Many people woke up on Christmas morning in 2020 to the news that a large explosion had occurred near an AT&T building in downtown Nashville, Tennessee. As police set out to determine what happened - authorities say that it was a suicide car bombing set up in the recreational vehicle of 63-year-old Anthony Quinn Warner - conspiracy theorists went to work setting up an alternative narrative: The explosion was actually caused by a missile strike. This claim was spread on conspiratorial websites such as HalTurnerRadio.com and the right-wing social media network Parler, but is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage. Before we examine the video, let's look at the basis of this claim. Why Would a Missile Strike Occur in Nashville? Two theories have been floated to connect the dots between an explosion in Nashville (which truly did occur) and a missile strike (which did not). The first holds that the goal of the missile strike was to destroy Room 641A, a 'telecom intercept facility.' This theory may have made more sense if 641A was located in Nashville. This room, which was reportedly used to carry out a warrantless surveillance program authorized under the Patriot Act, is actually located in San Francisco, California. The more prominent claim, however, attempted to connect the explosion in Nashville to conspiracy theories related to fraud in the 2020 election. This theory held that the U.S. government had ordered the missile strike in order to halt an audit on Dominion voting machines. We took a deeper look into this claim in our article here. In short, this 'audit' is imaginary. AT&T was not conducting an audit of Dominion Voting Systems. While Room 641A is not located in Nashville, and while AT&T was not performing an audit on Dominion voting machines, it's in this context that many social media users viewed the 'missile' attack video. The Nashville 'Missile' Attack Video This claim is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage obtained by Nashville's WKRN News 2. Proponents of this theory claim that a missile can be seen descending just before the explosion. This streak of 'smoke' is visible next to the furthest light post from the image foreground: While we can't say for certain what caused this 'smoke,' it appears that this streak of smoke is ascending, as if it were a piece of fiery debris from the explosion, and not descending, as if it were a missile. A second, faint ascending streak can also be seen behind the main streak, which seems to support the idea that this is debris shooting away from the explosion, not towards it. The visuals in this video do not support the 'missile' theory, and neither does the logic. Not only is this missile attack theory based on fictitious information (there was no audit of Dominion machines), we find it difficult to believe that a high-powered group with access to military weapons would launch a missile strike at Nashville's AT&T building and miss, striking an RV that was parked outside on the street. Ample Evidence the Explosion Came from the RV The Nashville missile-strike conspiracy theory is largely based on speculation drawn from a single piece of grainy footage. Ample evidence exists, however, about what actually caused this explosion. In the wee hours of Dec. 25, police responded to calls of gunshots near the AT&T building. When they arrived, they found an RV that was broadcasting a message of an imminent explosion. Resident Betsy Williams said that she heard a computerized voice saying 'Evacuate now ... This vehicle will explode in 15 minutes.' Six uniformed officers also heard the warning message and started to evacuate the area. Here's a video from a surveillance camera that captured this audio warning: A number of other videos also documented this blast. None of these videos shows anything resembling a missile strike. Here's a video of the explosion from the Nashville Police Department: This is video of Friday morning's explosion recorded by an MNPD camera at 2nd Ave N & Commerce St. pic.twitter.com/3vaXhoUOAR - Metro Nashville PD (@MNPDNashville) December 28, 2020 Authorities have also determined that Warner was responsible for the bombing, although the motives of the long-time Nashville resident, who died in the blast, have yet to be determined. Hundreds of tips and a phalanx of law enforcement officers helped determine that Anthony Quinn Warner triggered the bomb that rocked this city and took his life on Christmas morning. All that information and effort, however, have thus far failed to determine why. Investigators on Monday continued to try to put together the pieces. 'These answers won't come quickly and will still require a lot of our team's effort,' FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski said Sunday. 'None of those answers will ever be enough for those who have been affected by this event. | In short, this 'audit' is imaginary. AT&T was not conducting an audit of Dominion Voting Systems. While Room 641A is not located in Nashville, and while AT&T was not performing an audit on Dominion voting machines, it's in this context that many social media users viewed the 'missile' attack video. The Nashville 'Missile' Attack Video This claim is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage obtained by Nashville's WKRN News 2. Proponents of this theory claim that a missile can be seen descending just before the explosion. This streak of 'smoke' is visible next to the furthest light post from the image foreground: While we can't say for certain what caused this 'smoke,' it appears that this streak of smoke is ascending, as if it were a piece of fiery debris from the explosion, and not descending, as if it were a missile. A second, faint ascending streak can also be seen behind the main streak, which seems to support the idea that this is debris shooting away from the explosion, not towards it. The visuals in this video do not support the 'missile' theory, and neither does the logic. Not only is this missile attack theory based on fictitious information (there was no audit of Dominion machines), we find it difficult to believe that a high-powered group with access to military weapons would launch a missile strike at Nashville's AT&T building and miss, striking an RV that was parked outside on the street. Ample Evidence the Explosion Came from the RV The Nashville missile-strike conspiracy theory is largely based on speculation drawn from a single piece of grainy footage. Ample evidence exists, however, about what actually caused this explosion. In the wee hours of Dec. 25, police responded to calls of gunshots near the AT&T building. When they arrived, they found an RV that was broadcasting a message of an imminent explosion. Resident Betsy Williams said that she heard a computerized voice saying 'Evacuate now ... This vehicle will explode in 15 minutes.' Six uniformed officers also heard the warning message and started to evacuate the area. Here's a video from a surveillance camera that captured this audio warning: A number of other videos also documented this blast. None of these videos shows anything resembling a missile strike. Here's a video of the explosion from the Nashville Police Department: This is video of Friday morning's explosion recorded by an MNPD camera at 2nd Ave N & Commerce St. pic.twitter.com/3vaXhoUOAR - Metro Nashville PD (@MNPDNashville) December 28, 2020 Authorities have also determined that Warner was responsible for the bombing, although the motives of the long-time Nashville resident, who died in the blast, have yet to be determined. Hundreds of tips and a phalanx of law enforcement officers helped determine that Anthony Quinn Warner triggered the bomb that rocked this city and took his life on Christmas morning. All that information and effort, however, have thus far failed to determine why. Investigators on Monday continued to try to put together the pieces. 'These answers won't come quickly and will still require a lot of our team's effort,' FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski said Sunday. 'None of those answers will ever be enough for those who have been affected by this event. | [
"09998-proof-02-641a-false.jpg",
"09998-proof-09-nashville-bomb.jpg"
] |
An explosion in Nashville, Tennessee, on Dec. 25, 2020, was caused by a missile or a direct-energy weapon. | Contradiction | Many people woke up on Christmas morning in 2020 to the news that a large explosion had occurred near an AT&T building in downtown Nashville, Tennessee. As police set out to determine what happened - authorities say that it was a suicide car bombing set up in the recreational vehicle of 63-year-old Anthony Quinn Warner - conspiracy theorists went to work setting up an alternative narrative: The explosion was actually caused by a missile strike. This claim was spread on conspiratorial websites such as HalTurnerRadio.com and the right-wing social media network Parler, but is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage. Before we examine the video, let's look at the basis of this claim. Why Would a Missile Strike Occur in Nashville? Two theories have been floated to connect the dots between an explosion in Nashville (which truly did occur) and a missile strike (which did not). The first holds that the goal of the missile strike was to destroy Room 641A, a 'telecom intercept facility.' This theory may have made more sense if 641A was located in Nashville. This room, which was reportedly used to carry out a warrantless surveillance program authorized under the Patriot Act, is actually located in San Francisco, California. The more prominent claim, however, attempted to connect the explosion in Nashville to conspiracy theories related to fraud in the 2020 election. This theory held that the U.S. government had ordered the missile strike in order to halt an audit on Dominion voting machines. We took a deeper look into this claim in our article here. In short, this 'audit' is imaginary. AT&T was not conducting an audit of Dominion Voting Systems. While Room 641A is not located in Nashville, and while AT&T was not performing an audit on Dominion voting machines, it's in this context that many social media users viewed the 'missile' attack video. The Nashville 'Missile' Attack Video This claim is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage obtained by Nashville's WKRN News 2. Proponents of this theory claim that a missile can be seen descending just before the explosion. This streak of 'smoke' is visible next to the furthest light post from the image foreground: While we can't say for certain what caused this 'smoke,' it appears that this streak of smoke is ascending, as if it were a piece of fiery debris from the explosion, and not descending, as if it were a missile. A second, faint ascending streak can also be seen behind the main streak, which seems to support the idea that this is debris shooting away from the explosion, not towards it. The visuals in this video do not support the 'missile' theory, and neither does the logic. Not only is this missile attack theory based on fictitious information (there was no audit of Dominion machines), we find it difficult to believe that a high-powered group with access to military weapons would launch a missile strike at Nashville's AT&T building and miss, striking an RV that was parked outside on the street. Ample Evidence the Explosion Came from the RV The Nashville missile-strike conspiracy theory is largely based on speculation drawn from a single piece of grainy footage. Ample evidence exists, however, about what actually caused this explosion. In the wee hours of Dec. 25, police responded to calls of gunshots near the AT&T building. When they arrived, they found an RV that was broadcasting a message of an imminent explosion. Resident Betsy Williams said that she heard a computerized voice saying 'Evacuate now ... This vehicle will explode in 15 minutes.' Six uniformed officers also heard the warning message and started to evacuate the area. Here's a video from a surveillance camera that captured this audio warning: A number of other videos also documented this blast. None of these videos shows anything resembling a missile strike. Here's a video of the explosion from the Nashville Police Department: This is video of Friday morning's explosion recorded by an MNPD camera at 2nd Ave N & Commerce St. pic.twitter.com/3vaXhoUOAR - Metro Nashville PD (@MNPDNashville) December 28, 2020 Authorities have also determined that Warner was responsible for the bombing, although the motives of the long-time Nashville resident, who died in the blast, have yet to be determined. Hundreds of tips and a phalanx of law enforcement officers helped determine that Anthony Quinn Warner triggered the bomb that rocked this city and took his life on Christmas morning. All that information and effort, however, have thus far failed to determine why. Investigators on Monday continued to try to put together the pieces. 'These answers won't come quickly and will still require a lot of our team's effort,' FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski said Sunday. 'None of those answers will ever be enough for those who have been affected by this event. | In short, this 'audit' is imaginary. AT&T was not conducting an audit of Dominion Voting Systems. While Room 641A is not located in Nashville, and while AT&T was not performing an audit on Dominion voting machines, it's in this context that many social media users viewed the 'missile' attack video. The Nashville 'Missile' Attack Video This claim is largely based on a single grainy piece of footage obtained by Nashville's WKRN News 2. Proponents of this theory claim that a missile can be seen descending just before the explosion. This streak of 'smoke' is visible next to the furthest light post from the image foreground: While we can't say for certain what caused this 'smoke,' it appears that this streak of smoke is ascending, as if it were a piece of fiery debris from the explosion, and not descending, as if it were a missile. A second, faint ascending streak can also be seen behind the main streak, which seems to support the idea that this is debris shooting away from the explosion, not towards it. The visuals in this video do not support the 'missile' theory, and neither does the logic. Not only is this missile attack theory based on fictitious information (there was no audit of Dominion machines), we find it difficult to believe that a high-powered group with access to military weapons would launch a missile strike at Nashville's AT&T building and miss, striking an RV that was parked outside on the street. Ample Evidence the Explosion Came from the RV The Nashville missile-strike conspiracy theory is largely based on speculation drawn from a single piece of grainy footage. Ample evidence exists, however, about what actually caused this explosion. In the wee hours of Dec. 25, police responded to calls of gunshots near the AT&T building. When they arrived, they found an RV that was broadcasting a message of an imminent explosion. Resident Betsy Williams said that she heard a computerized voice saying 'Evacuate now ... This vehicle will explode in 15 minutes.' Six uniformed officers also heard the warning message and started to evacuate the area. Here's a video from a surveillance camera that captured this audio warning: A number of other videos also documented this blast. None of these videos shows anything resembling a missile strike. Here's a video of the explosion from the Nashville Police Department: This is video of Friday morning's explosion recorded by an MNPD camera at 2nd Ave N & Commerce St. pic.twitter.com/3vaXhoUOAR - Metro Nashville PD (@MNPDNashville) December 28, 2020 Authorities have also determined that Warner was responsible for the bombing, although the motives of the long-time Nashville resident, who died in the blast, have yet to be determined. Hundreds of tips and a phalanx of law enforcement officers helped determine that Anthony Quinn Warner triggered the bomb that rocked this city and took his life on Christmas morning. All that information and effort, however, have thus far failed to determine why. Investigators on Monday continued to try to put together the pieces. 'These answers won't come quickly and will still require a lot of our team's effort,' FBI Special Agent for Public Affairs Doug Korneski said Sunday. 'None of those answers will ever be enough for those who have been affected by this event. | [
"09998-proof-02-641a-false.jpg",
"09998-proof-09-nashville-bomb.jpg"
] |
The Trump administration's approval of the presidential transition process means Trump has conceded the 2020 election to Joe Biden. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy - an appointee of President Donald Trump - wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone - winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins - weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. 'It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome,' read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the 'Office of the President Elect,' and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff - otherwise known as a transition team - to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to 'apparent president-elect' and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported: In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didn't need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action 'is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue.″ Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell 'COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES' T-shirts. Additionally, on Twitter the president said: 'Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be.' The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures - steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president - as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the 'apparent president-elect' in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. | in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to 'apparent president-elect' and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported: In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didn't need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action 'is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue.″ Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell 'COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES' T-shirts. Additionally, on Twitter the president said: 'Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be.' The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures - steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president - as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the 'apparent president-elect' in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. | [
"10027-proof-12-GettyImages-1286746020.jpg"
] |
The Trump administration's approval of the presidential transition process means Trump has conceded the 2020 election to Joe Biden. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy - an appointee of President Donald Trump - wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone - winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins - weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. 'It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome,' read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the 'Office of the President Elect,' and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff - otherwise known as a transition team - to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to 'apparent president-elect' and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported: In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didn't need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action 'is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue.″ Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell 'COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES' T-shirts. Additionally, on Twitter the president said: 'Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be.' The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures - steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president - as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the 'apparent president-elect' in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. | in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to 'apparent president-elect' and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies. The Associated Press reported: In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didn't need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action 'is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue.″ Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell 'COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES' T-shirts. Additionally, on Twitter the president said: 'Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be.' The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures - steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president - as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the 'apparent president-elect' in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. | [
"10027-proof-12-GettyImages-1286746020.jpg"
] |
A second Broward County sheriff's deputy died suspiciously after 'exposing' the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida. | Contradiction | On 25 April 2018, the Sheriff's Office in Broward County, Florida, announced the death of sheriff's deputy Marshall Lawrence Peterson, a 28-year veteran of that office: It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of Deputy Marshall Peterson, a 28-year veteran of the Broward Sheriff's Office, Department of Detention. Deputy Peterson, 53, died at his residence. Thank you for your service, Deputy. pic.twitter.com/ytEwtINkWp - Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) April 25, 2018 Conspiracy sites promptly attempted to link Peterson's death with that of Jason Fitzsimons, who passed away on 1 April 2018. Sites such as Your News Wire attempted to connect the two deaths by claiming that both men had 'exposed' the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the Broward County community of Parkland: Marshall Peterson, a Broward County Deputy Sheriff who dared to question the official narrative surrounding the Parkland shooting, has been found dead under suspicious circumstances. He was 53. A 28-year veteran of the Broward Sheriff's office, Deputy Peterson is the second Broward County Sheriff's Deputy to be found dead in sudden and unexpected circumstances in the month following the Parkland massacre. Deputy Jason Fitzsimon, 42, was found dead on his sofa on April 1. The two deaths did have several factors in commons: both men worked for the Broward County Sheriff's Office, both passed away relatively young (Fitzsimons was 42, Peterson was 53), and in neither case was a cause of death announced. And neither of the deceased was said to have been suffering from health problems, to have been killed in an accident, or to have been the victim of a homicide. However, the lack of stated causes of death, combined with the use of common euphemistic language (Fitzsimons' obituary notes that he 'died unexpectedly,' while Peterson was said to have 'died at his residence') suggests suicide as a likely cause of death in each case, rather than a mysterious plot to do in all those who have dared to question the 'official' narrative of the Parkland shooting. Moreover, neither man 'exposed' anything about that shooting - Fitzsimons simply posted social media criticisms of a number of persons associated with that event (primarily teen activist David Hogg), and Peterson had no connection to the Parkland shooting at all that we could find. (The Broward County Sheriff told us that Fitzsimons' death was not considered 'suspicious' and had no connection to his social media postings about the high school shooting.) The Your News Wire article offered no explanation or information regarding what Peterson might have 'exposed' about the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, or how might have done so. The article simply rehashed elements of Fitzsimons' death and social media postings without saying much of anything about Peterson at all, beyond noting that he had passed away with no cause of death stated. In short, two men died in the same month, with no substantive connection (remarkable or otherwise) between them other than that they were both among the more than 2,800 deputies employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office. | In short, two men died in the same month, with no substantive connection (remarkable or otherwise) between them other than that they were both among the more than 2,800 deputies employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office. | [] |
A second Broward County sheriff's deputy died suspiciously after 'exposing' the mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida. | Contradiction | On 25 April 2018, the Sheriff's Office in Broward County, Florida, announced the death of sheriff's deputy Marshall Lawrence Peterson, a 28-year veteran of that office: It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of Deputy Marshall Peterson, a 28-year veteran of the Broward Sheriff's Office, Department of Detention. Deputy Peterson, 53, died at his residence. Thank you for your service, Deputy. pic.twitter.com/ytEwtINkWp - Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) April 25, 2018 Conspiracy sites promptly attempted to link Peterson's death with that of Jason Fitzsimons, who passed away on 1 April 2018. Sites such as Your News Wire attempted to connect the two deaths by claiming that both men had 'exposed' the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the Broward County community of Parkland: Marshall Peterson, a Broward County Deputy Sheriff who dared to question the official narrative surrounding the Parkland shooting, has been found dead under suspicious circumstances. He was 53. A 28-year veteran of the Broward Sheriff's office, Deputy Peterson is the second Broward County Sheriff's Deputy to be found dead in sudden and unexpected circumstances in the month following the Parkland massacre. Deputy Jason Fitzsimon, 42, was found dead on his sofa on April 1. The two deaths did have several factors in commons: both men worked for the Broward County Sheriff's Office, both passed away relatively young (Fitzsimons was 42, Peterson was 53), and in neither case was a cause of death announced. And neither of the deceased was said to have been suffering from health problems, to have been killed in an accident, or to have been the victim of a homicide. However, the lack of stated causes of death, combined with the use of common euphemistic language (Fitzsimons' obituary notes that he 'died unexpectedly,' while Peterson was said to have 'died at his residence') suggests suicide as a likely cause of death in each case, rather than a mysterious plot to do in all those who have dared to question the 'official' narrative of the Parkland shooting. Moreover, neither man 'exposed' anything about that shooting - Fitzsimons simply posted social media criticisms of a number of persons associated with that event (primarily teen activist David Hogg), and Peterson had no connection to the Parkland shooting at all that we could find. (The Broward County Sheriff told us that Fitzsimons' death was not considered 'suspicious' and had no connection to his social media postings about the high school shooting.) The Your News Wire article offered no explanation or information regarding what Peterson might have 'exposed' about the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, or how might have done so. The article simply rehashed elements of Fitzsimons' death and social media postings without saying much of anything about Peterson at all, beyond noting that he had passed away with no cause of death stated. In short, two men died in the same month, with no substantive connection (remarkable or otherwise) between them other than that they were both among the more than 2,800 deputies employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office. | In short, two men died in the same month, with no substantive connection (remarkable or otherwise) between them other than that they were both among the more than 2,800 deputies employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office. | [] |
A photograph shows a couple watching the Apollo 8 spacecraft launch in 1968. | Contradiction | A photograph purportedly showing a couple sharing an intimate moment while watching the Apollo 8 rocket launch in 1968 is frequently circulated on social media: This is not a genuine photograph, but rather a composite of at least two different images. The source photograph for the image of the couple was taken circa 2016 at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, Russia. Instead of watching the Apollo 8 rocket launch, this couple was actually taking in a painting by Ivan Tsarevich called 'Riding the Grey Wolf.' While we haven't been able to definitively determine the photographer, the Chronicle Magazine attributed this image to Андрей Строганов (Andrey Stroganov). Here's a look at the doctored image (left) and the original photograph (right). We flipped the doctored version to better match the original: The rocket launch in the background of this image has little to do with NASA or the Apollo 8 mission. This image actually shows Japan's H-2A rocket taking off from the Tanegashima Space Center in May 2010. The original image is available via the Associated Press, along with the following caption: Japan's H-2A rocket carrying Akatsuki, which is set to become the country's first probe to orbit Venus to examine its climate, blasts off into space from Tanegashima Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture, southwestern Japan, on May 21, 2010. (Kyodo via AP Images) Here's a look at the doctored image (left) and the original rocket photograph (right): In sum, the viral image purportedly showing a 'couple watching the Apollo 8 spacecraft launch in 1968' is actually a composite image comprising a 2016 photograph of a couple viewing a painting and a 2010 photograph of a rocket launch in Japan. | In sum, the viral image purportedly showing a 'couple watching the Apollo 8 spacecraft launch in 1968' is actually a composite image comprising a 2016 photograph of a couple viewing a painting and a 2010 photograph of a rocket launch in Japan. | [
"10135-proof-06-64274458_1335719179939293_4221433075025838080_n-1.jpg"
] |
A chart that surfaced online in summer 2021 accurately displayed COVID-19 variants and when they would first be detected and covered in news reports. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As a the highly contagious delta variant of the novel coronavirus caused infection surges in July 2021, Snopes readers contacted us about a chart circulating on social media supposedly showing when future strains would emerge. In several places online, the chart was framed as evidence of a nefarious plan by unspecified forces to discuss COVID-19 variants on a predetermined schedule. The table included a column labeled 'Cepa/variante' - the Spanish words for 'strain/variant' - and another titled 'lanzamiento,' which is Spanish for 'launched.' Underneath the columns were letters of the Greek alphabet and the months those alleged variants would appear in news reports. 'These are the PLANNED COVID-19 VARIANTS - just look at the dates when they will be 'released' to the media,' one tweet claimed. In short, the image was bogus. However, similarly to most conspiracy theories, it was based on a small nugget of truth: All viruses' genetic codes mutate over their lifespan - which meant that strains of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, would indeed keep surfacing in the future - and the World Health Organization (WHO) does label new viral strains after letters of the Greek alphabet. Let us elaborate on that former concept. Even in the early days of the pandemic, epidemiologists were tracking various strains of SARS-CoV-2 to see how they differed from the virus' original genetic code. The CDC summarized the process like this: If you think about a virus (SARS-CoV-2) like a tree growing and branching out; each branch on the tree is slightly different than the others. By comparing the branches, scientists can label them according to the differences. These small differences, or variants, have been studied and identified since the beginning of the pandemic. And since the variants' scientific names are complicated (they note their genetic lineages), the WHO adopted the Greek alphabet classification system as an 'easier and more practical' way for everyone to talk about the variant strains. For examples, variants that emerged in the United Kingdom and South Africa in late 2020 were dubbed 'alpha' and 'beta,' respectively. And as of this writing, public health officials were ringing the alarm on the 'delta' variant, a mutation that was up to 60% more infectious than previous SARS-CoV-2 strains. (On July 27, due to infection surges, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended all people - regardless of their vaccination status - to wear masks indoors in communities with high transmission rates. Most new COVID-19 infections in the U.S. were among unvaccinated people, and studies showed existing inoculations prevented most recipients from getting sick from delta.) Now, let's address some errors in the chart's alleged future-telling. For starters, it claimed 'delta' would be 'launched' in June - in reality, the variant was first detected in India in December 2020, and the first U.S. case was diagnosed in March. The purported timeline made similar errors (said 'X' variant would surface in 'Y' month that hasn't happened yet) when actually a strain with that name already existed. To make our point, compare the viral chart to a sampling of variants on the WHO's website displayed below. Under the pretenses of the alleged timeline, 'eta' would begin circulating in September and 'iota' would begin infecting people in November - however, those variants were first detected in March and already circulating. Note: Some variants of SARS-CoV-2 were barely different from the original virus, while others such as delta, included significant alterations in their genetic code that changed how they spread or attacked hosts' immune systems. Next, let us address the image's misleading design. Logos for agencies leading COVID-19 research, such as the Johns Hopkins University, the World Economic Forum, and the WHO, were positioned next to the chart, as if it originated from those credible institutions. However, that was not the case. No evidence links the groups - nor anyone else in the science community - to the alleged timeline. There was, however, ongoing research by reputable scientists to try to predict how, and by what rate, new COVID-19 variants would surface in the future. (According to Ed Feil, a professor of microbial evolution at the University of Bath, epidemiologists know the SARS-CoV-2's genome typically acquires one or two mutations a month on average - a rate that is about four times slower than the mutation process of the influenza virus.) But, unlike the chart appeared to do, that type of forecasting could not be turned into a simple month-to-month table. Feil said of predicting COVID-19 variants in May: 'Predictions about the evolutionary course of the virus, and specifically changes in virulence, will always be riddled with uncertainty. The vagaries of randomly mutating RNA, chaotic patterns of transmission and expansion, and partially understood forces of natural selection, present challenges to even the most insightful evolutionary soothsayer.' In other words, if credible scientists were facing an uphill challenge to try to predict the random, naturally occurring process of virus mutations, it was unlikely the unidentified creators of the viral chart had actually made the revelation first. For the sake of playing devil's advocate, if the image's authors had actually mapped out the virus' evolution timeline, the chart would be eminently newsworthy. Reputable news outlets or journalists would be scrambling to corroborate the purported schedule and write headlines like, 'Research shows a new COVID-19 variant will emerge every month for the next two years.' No such reporting was happening. Lastly, it was unclear who, or what, exactly created the chart, though it was primarily circulating among people who shared this baseless belief: that unidentified evil forces were were trying to deceive non-believers into thinking the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was a force of nature for their own gain. 'PLANdemic,' one commenter alleged in a thread discussing the chart. In sum, the image was nothing but a piece of misinformation in a wide-ranging, unfounded conspiracy that tech companies, journalists, politicians, and/or scientists were all coordinating together to undermine everyone else via COVID-19. For that reason, and those outlined above, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, the image was nothing but a piece of misinformation in a wide-ranging, unfounded conspiracy that tech companies, journalists, politicians, and/or scientists were all coordinating together to undermine everyone else via COVID-19. For that reason, and those outlined above, we rate this claim 'False.' | [] |
Between March and August 2020, 'how to hit a woman so no one knows' was typed into Google 163 million times - a 31% spike compared to the number of such searches during the same months in 2019. | Contradiction | In late April 2021, social media posts, like the one displayed below, Google users allegedly asked the search engine 'how to a hit a woman so now one knows' more often during the first phase of lockdowns to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 than during the same time frame the previous year. The claim originated from media sources including Blavity (a Los Angeles-based platform serving Black millennials), UNILAD (a British media outlet), and MSNBC (an American cable network owned by NBC Universal). We obtained an archived version of an April 26 opinion column by the latter outlet, a piece of commentary that cited peer-reviewed research analyzing Google searches from the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 to the end of August that year. The MSNBC article said: [Millions] of men appear to be doing some very specific research about how to assault the women around them. Published in The Journal of General Psychology, the study was led by Katerina Standish, the deputy director and senior lecturer at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. 'How to hit a woman so no one knows' was typed into Google 163 million times, a 31 percent increase compared to 2019. In other words, Google users purportedly searched 'how to hit a woman so no one knows' 163 million times between March and August 2020, and that number was 31 percent higher than the amount of same searches during those months the previous year. However, that was not true. One day after the MSNBC column published, onlookers identified flaws in the research's methodology, and its author confirmed the findings were inaccurate. As a result, the news outlet removed the above-transcribed section from its article citing the research. (That updated version of the story remained live online as of this writing.) We looked at Google search data ourselves. By searching the phrase 'how to hit a woman so no one knows,' the platform produces billions of returns - or websites or posts that contain those keywords. That is not the same as the number of times users searched the question (we explain how to find that quantity below), and it appeared to grow significantly after the MSNBC article and other media coverage. By using the separate Google Trends search engine - a tool that compiles data for Google search queries worldwide - we learned that relatively no one used the website to look for information on 'how to hit a woman so no one knows,' including during the time window referenced in the study (March to August 2020). Next, to fully explore the issue, we reached out to Standish (the author of the study called, 'COVID-19, suicide, and femicide: Rapid Research using Google search phrase') to learn about her research process and its shortcomings. She responded to us via email, saying she indeed mistook the amount of search returns for the number of times Google users entered the phrase looking for answers. After the revelation, she said she alerted The Journal of General Psychology of the error and requested an assessment of the entire study. 'The results are meaningless ... all I have done is demonstrate a rise in web pages over the year. Not at all what I thought I was doing,' Standish said. '[The] goal of the study was to look for people who were hurting to elevate what they are going through and to help.' Additionally, Standish apologized for the research's flaws on Twitter: 'The first time I googled these terms my heart skipped...I was shocked,' she continued in a tweet thread. 'I sincerely apologise and will make amends.' In sum, we rate this claim 'false' - millions of people, presumably men, did not turn to Google for help to seemingly conceal physical abuse against their female partners during the early months of the pandemic. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help.Recent Updates This report was updated with comments from the researcher to Snopes. | In sum, we rate this claim 'false' - millions of people, presumably men, did not turn to Google for help to seemingly conceal physical abuse against their female partners during the early months of the pandemic. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse from an intimate partner, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or text LOVEIS to 22522 for anonymous, confidential help.Recent Updates This report was updated with comments from the researcher to Snopes. | [
"10272-proof-05-1280px-Laptop_Google_Search-e1619626906473.jpg"
] |
A picture of a road lined with trees shows a Tesla charging with a gas generator in the U.S. | Contradiction | On Nov. 7, 2021, the Twitter account Thinking Patriot tweeted a photograph of a Tesla car that appeared to be in the process of charging using a gas generator. It also appeared on Facebook. This claim might remind readers of a previous fact check about a picture that purportedly showed a 'diesel car charging station' for electric cars. The Picture The photograph in question shows a Tesla, a fully electric car, and likely a gas generator on the side of a tree-lined road: A gas generator being used to charge the dead battery in an electric car What exactly did you think was going to happen Welcome to 2021#GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/PuIYX8VVdb - Thinking Patriot (@LWPhototherapy) November 7, 2021 The user, who claimed to be based in California, tweeted 'welcome to 2021' and included a hashtag for the Green New Deal, a proposed plan that is mostly about addressing climate change. We also found a Reddit user who believed the picture was shot in a 'hillbilly red state that refused funding for EV charge stations.' Green New Deal The tweet in question may have been an attempt to make fun of the very real climate crisis, which is a non-political, science-based issue that for decades has been discussed by those in opposition to reality as if it's a matter of personal opinion. On Oct. 30, 2021, The Associated Press (AP) reported on the dire nature of the current situation: Fires raged. Rivers flooded. Ice melted. Droughts baked. Storms brewed. Temperatures soared. And people died. Climate change in 2021 reshaped life on planet Earth through extreme weather. World leaders are gathering in Scotland to try to accelerate the fight to curb climate change. So far, it's not working, as the world keeps getting hotter and its weather more extreme, scientists and government officials say. They don't have to point far back in time or far off for examples. The Green New Deal is mostly supported by a number of Democratic politicians. As AP reported in 2019, some 'GOP lawmakers denounced the plan as a radical proposal that would drive the economy off a cliff and lead to a huge tax increase.' The Photograph's Origins In reality, the photograph was not captured in the United States. We found some Imgur and Reddit users who believed it was shot in either Nigeria or Syria. The license plate appeared to match the style used in the United Arab Emirates, possibly in Dubai, as Reddit users pointed out. Whatever the case, it's clear that the picture was not taken in North America. A Reddit user commented on the picture, posting: 'Sometimes I use an ELECTRIC battery charger to start my truck. What's your point?' Another person responded: 'I agree with you. If the battery on the car is dead and it's 100% electric you have to charge the battery somehow. This is probably the only option. People run out of gas while driving. This is no different. The Facepalm is running out of battery, not using a gas generator to charge an electric car [Tesla].' The same Thinking Patriot Twitter user also posted an un-captioned cover image of a single Tesla Supercharger station that was underwater. However, according to a report, this one station was in the U.K. and appeared to be a planning error as it was built on a flood plain. Further, there are more than 25,000 other Tesla Supercharger stations available worldwide. A Second Picture While this photograph was not shot in the U.S., we did find a similar one that was. It also showed a Tesla car and what looked like a gas generator. Just using the emergency fuel can on the side of the road. from Wellthatsucks According to Google Maps, as of November 2021, there are Tesla Supercharger stations near this location in Vancouver, Washington. However, it's unclear if those stations were there when the picture was taken. We did not find the second picture being used in any political memes. Can a Gas Generator Charge a Tesla? As for the separate question of whether a gas generator could add battery life to a Tesla vehicle, one YouTube account put the idea to the test. The Fast Lane Car channel posted a video that showed the process might be quite complicated. According to the conclusion of the experiment, the person was able to add around 12 driving miles to the car by pouring a single gallon of gas into a generator. It took about three hours. Those extra miles might be enough to make it to a nearby Tesla Supercharger station for the very small number of drivers who might ever be stranded with an empty battery. In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | [
"10283-proof-08-tesla-not-united-states.jpg"
] |
A picture of a road lined with trees shows a Tesla charging with a gas generator in the U.S. | Contradiction | On Nov. 7, 2021, the Twitter account Thinking Patriot tweeted a photograph of a Tesla car that appeared to be in the process of charging using a gas generator. It also appeared on Facebook. This claim might remind readers of a previous fact check about a picture that purportedly showed a 'diesel car charging station' for electric cars. The Picture The photograph in question shows a Tesla, a fully electric car, and likely a gas generator on the side of a tree-lined road: A gas generator being used to charge the dead battery in an electric car What exactly did you think was going to happen Welcome to 2021#GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/PuIYX8VVdb - Thinking Patriot (@LWPhototherapy) November 7, 2021 The user, who claimed to be based in California, tweeted 'welcome to 2021' and included a hashtag for the Green New Deal, a proposed plan that is mostly about addressing climate change. We also found a Reddit user who believed the picture was shot in a 'hillbilly red state that refused funding for EV charge stations.' Green New Deal The tweet in question may have been an attempt to make fun of the very real climate crisis, which is a non-political, science-based issue that for decades has been discussed by those in opposition to reality as if it's a matter of personal opinion. On Oct. 30, 2021, The Associated Press (AP) reported on the dire nature of the current situation: Fires raged. Rivers flooded. Ice melted. Droughts baked. Storms brewed. Temperatures soared. And people died. Climate change in 2021 reshaped life on planet Earth through extreme weather. World leaders are gathering in Scotland to try to accelerate the fight to curb climate change. So far, it's not working, as the world keeps getting hotter and its weather more extreme, scientists and government officials say. They don't have to point far back in time or far off for examples. The Green New Deal is mostly supported by a number of Democratic politicians. As AP reported in 2019, some 'GOP lawmakers denounced the plan as a radical proposal that would drive the economy off a cliff and lead to a huge tax increase.' The Photograph's Origins In reality, the photograph was not captured in the United States. We found some Imgur and Reddit users who believed it was shot in either Nigeria or Syria. The license plate appeared to match the style used in the United Arab Emirates, possibly in Dubai, as Reddit users pointed out. Whatever the case, it's clear that the picture was not taken in North America. A Reddit user commented on the picture, posting: 'Sometimes I use an ELECTRIC battery charger to start my truck. What's your point?' Another person responded: 'I agree with you. If the battery on the car is dead and it's 100% electric you have to charge the battery somehow. This is probably the only option. People run out of gas while driving. This is no different. The Facepalm is running out of battery, not using a gas generator to charge an electric car [Tesla].' The same Thinking Patriot Twitter user also posted an un-captioned cover image of a single Tesla Supercharger station that was underwater. However, according to a report, this one station was in the U.K. and appeared to be a planning error as it was built on a flood plain. Further, there are more than 25,000 other Tesla Supercharger stations available worldwide. A Second Picture While this photograph was not shot in the U.S., we did find a similar one that was. It also showed a Tesla car and what looked like a gas generator. Just using the emergency fuel can on the side of the road. from Wellthatsucks According to Google Maps, as of November 2021, there are Tesla Supercharger stations near this location in Vancouver, Washington. However, it's unclear if those stations were there when the picture was taken. We did not find the second picture being used in any political memes. Can a Gas Generator Charge a Tesla? As for the separate question of whether a gas generator could add battery life to a Tesla vehicle, one YouTube account put the idea to the test. The Fast Lane Car channel posted a video that showed the process might be quite complicated. According to the conclusion of the experiment, the person was able to add around 12 driving miles to the car by pouring a single gallon of gas into a generator. It took about three hours. Those extra miles might be enough to make it to a nearby Tesla Supercharger station for the very small number of drivers who might ever be stranded with an empty battery. In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | [
"10283-proof-08-tesla-not-united-states.jpg"
] |
A picture of a road lined with trees shows a Tesla charging with a gas generator in the U.S. | Contradiction | On Nov. 7, 2021, the Twitter account Thinking Patriot tweeted a photograph of a Tesla car that appeared to be in the process of charging using a gas generator. It also appeared on Facebook. This claim might remind readers of a previous fact check about a picture that purportedly showed a 'diesel car charging station' for electric cars. The Picture The photograph in question shows a Tesla, a fully electric car, and likely a gas generator on the side of a tree-lined road: A gas generator being used to charge the dead battery in an electric car What exactly did you think was going to happen Welcome to 2021#GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/PuIYX8VVdb - Thinking Patriot (@LWPhototherapy) November 7, 2021 The user, who claimed to be based in California, tweeted 'welcome to 2021' and included a hashtag for the Green New Deal, a proposed plan that is mostly about addressing climate change. We also found a Reddit user who believed the picture was shot in a 'hillbilly red state that refused funding for EV charge stations.' Green New Deal The tweet in question may have been an attempt to make fun of the very real climate crisis, which is a non-political, science-based issue that for decades has been discussed by those in opposition to reality as if it's a matter of personal opinion. On Oct. 30, 2021, The Associated Press (AP) reported on the dire nature of the current situation: Fires raged. Rivers flooded. Ice melted. Droughts baked. Storms brewed. Temperatures soared. And people died. Climate change in 2021 reshaped life on planet Earth through extreme weather. World leaders are gathering in Scotland to try to accelerate the fight to curb climate change. So far, it's not working, as the world keeps getting hotter and its weather more extreme, scientists and government officials say. They don't have to point far back in time or far off for examples. The Green New Deal is mostly supported by a number of Democratic politicians. As AP reported in 2019, some 'GOP lawmakers denounced the plan as a radical proposal that would drive the economy off a cliff and lead to a huge tax increase.' The Photograph's Origins In reality, the photograph was not captured in the United States. We found some Imgur and Reddit users who believed it was shot in either Nigeria or Syria. The license plate appeared to match the style used in the United Arab Emirates, possibly in Dubai, as Reddit users pointed out. Whatever the case, it's clear that the picture was not taken in North America. A Reddit user commented on the picture, posting: 'Sometimes I use an ELECTRIC battery charger to start my truck. What's your point?' Another person responded: 'I agree with you. If the battery on the car is dead and it's 100% electric you have to charge the battery somehow. This is probably the only option. People run out of gas while driving. This is no different. The Facepalm is running out of battery, not using a gas generator to charge an electric car [Tesla].' The same Thinking Patriot Twitter user also posted an un-captioned cover image of a single Tesla Supercharger station that was underwater. However, according to a report, this one station was in the U.K. and appeared to be a planning error as it was built on a flood plain. Further, there are more than 25,000 other Tesla Supercharger stations available worldwide. A Second Picture While this photograph was not shot in the U.S., we did find a similar one that was. It also showed a Tesla car and what looked like a gas generator. Just using the emergency fuel can on the side of the road. from Wellthatsucks According to Google Maps, as of November 2021, there are Tesla Supercharger stations near this location in Vancouver, Washington. However, it's unclear if those stations were there when the picture was taken. We did not find the second picture being used in any political memes. Can a Gas Generator Charge a Tesla? As for the separate question of whether a gas generator could add battery life to a Tesla vehicle, one YouTube account put the idea to the test. The Fast Lane Car channel posted a video that showed the process might be quite complicated. According to the conclusion of the experiment, the person was able to add around 12 driving miles to the car by pouring a single gallon of gas into a generator. It took about three hours. Those extra miles might be enough to make it to a nearby Tesla Supercharger station for the very small number of drivers who might ever be stranded with an empty battery. In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | [
"10283-proof-08-tesla-not-united-states.jpg"
] |
A picture of a road lined with trees shows a Tesla charging with a gas generator in the U.S. | Contradiction | On Nov. 7, 2021, the Twitter account Thinking Patriot tweeted a photograph of a Tesla car that appeared to be in the process of charging using a gas generator. It also appeared on Facebook. This claim might remind readers of a previous fact check about a picture that purportedly showed a 'diesel car charging station' for electric cars. The Picture The photograph in question shows a Tesla, a fully electric car, and likely a gas generator on the side of a tree-lined road: A gas generator being used to charge the dead battery in an electric car What exactly did you think was going to happen Welcome to 2021#GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/PuIYX8VVdb - Thinking Patriot (@LWPhototherapy) November 7, 2021 The user, who claimed to be based in California, tweeted 'welcome to 2021' and included a hashtag for the Green New Deal, a proposed plan that is mostly about addressing climate change. We also found a Reddit user who believed the picture was shot in a 'hillbilly red state that refused funding for EV charge stations.' Green New Deal The tweet in question may have been an attempt to make fun of the very real climate crisis, which is a non-political, science-based issue that for decades has been discussed by those in opposition to reality as if it's a matter of personal opinion. On Oct. 30, 2021, The Associated Press (AP) reported on the dire nature of the current situation: Fires raged. Rivers flooded. Ice melted. Droughts baked. Storms brewed. Temperatures soared. And people died. Climate change in 2021 reshaped life on planet Earth through extreme weather. World leaders are gathering in Scotland to try to accelerate the fight to curb climate change. So far, it's not working, as the world keeps getting hotter and its weather more extreme, scientists and government officials say. They don't have to point far back in time or far off for examples. The Green New Deal is mostly supported by a number of Democratic politicians. As AP reported in 2019, some 'GOP lawmakers denounced the plan as a radical proposal that would drive the economy off a cliff and lead to a huge tax increase.' The Photograph's Origins In reality, the photograph was not captured in the United States. We found some Imgur and Reddit users who believed it was shot in either Nigeria or Syria. The license plate appeared to match the style used in the United Arab Emirates, possibly in Dubai, as Reddit users pointed out. Whatever the case, it's clear that the picture was not taken in North America. A Reddit user commented on the picture, posting: 'Sometimes I use an ELECTRIC battery charger to start my truck. What's your point?' Another person responded: 'I agree with you. If the battery on the car is dead and it's 100% electric you have to charge the battery somehow. This is probably the only option. People run out of gas while driving. This is no different. The Facepalm is running out of battery, not using a gas generator to charge an electric car [Tesla].' The same Thinking Patriot Twitter user also posted an un-captioned cover image of a single Tesla Supercharger station that was underwater. However, according to a report, this one station was in the U.K. and appeared to be a planning error as it was built on a flood plain. Further, there are more than 25,000 other Tesla Supercharger stations available worldwide. A Second Picture While this photograph was not shot in the U.S., we did find a similar one that was. It also showed a Tesla car and what looked like a gas generator. Just using the emergency fuel can on the side of the road. from Wellthatsucks According to Google Maps, as of November 2021, there are Tesla Supercharger stations near this location in Vancouver, Washington. However, it's unclear if those stations were there when the picture was taken. We did not find the second picture being used in any political memes. Can a Gas Generator Charge a Tesla? As for the separate question of whether a gas generator could add battery life to a Tesla vehicle, one YouTube account put the idea to the test. The Fast Lane Car channel posted a video that showed the process might be quite complicated. According to the conclusion of the experiment, the person was able to add around 12 driving miles to the car by pouring a single gallon of gas into a generator. It took about three hours. Those extra miles might be enough to make it to a nearby Tesla Supercharger station for the very small number of drivers who might ever be stranded with an empty battery. In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | In sum, a picture of a Tesla car being charged with a gas generator was shared as if it had something to do with American politics. While we did find a completely different photograph that was shot in the U.S., the picture in question wasn't even captured in North America. Further, in a general sense, a single photograph of one example of anything does not represent the reality of an entire subject. Sources Acoba, Paulo. 'Shocking Photo Shows UK Tesla Supercharger Bays Underwater, Built on Flood Plain.' Alt Car News, 12 Feb. 2020, https://tiremeetsroad.com/2020/02/12/shocking-photo-shows-uk-tesla-supercharger-bays-underwater-built-on-flood-plain/. 'Analysis | What's Actually in the 'Green New Deal' from Democrats?' Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/. Can You Charge A Tesla With A Portable Generator? We Give It ATry! | Adventure X Ep.6. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5QA8C3S5k. Clift, Eleanor. 'These Republicans Are Tiptoeing Toward a Green New Deal.' The Daily Beast, 10 July 2021. www.thedailybeast.com, https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-republicans-are-tiptoeing-toward-a-green-new-deal. 'Climate Change Reshaped Earth with Extreme Weather This Year.' AP News, 30 Oct. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-health-environment-and-nature-d1cd773bfb6000e0d77a58ea743c135f. 'Democrats Seek Green New Deal to Address Climate Change.' AP News, 22 Apr. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-solar-power-climate-change-385ab89f01024aa99e64c5cdb97f0d16. 'Does Biden Support the Green New Deal?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com. Imgur. 'A Tesla Being Charged by a Generator in Nigeria. Fact: Nigeria Has No Electric Charging Stations.' Imgur, https://imgur.com/rIWrHRB. 'Is This a 'Diesel Car Charging Station' for Electric Cars?' Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/diesel-car-charging-station/. 'Supercharger.' Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger. 'The Green New Deal.' Bernie Sanders Official Website, https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. | [
"10283-proof-08-tesla-not-united-states.jpg"
] |
A couple seeking to conceive via IVF discovered through DNA testing that they were fraternal twins. | Contradiction | In mid-April 2017, a number of online publications in the U.S. and UK (including the Daily Mail, Fox News, the Inquisitr, Metro, the Mirror, and the Evening Standard) published accounts of a couple who supposedly sought treatment to conceive via IVF, only to discover to their shock that they were biological twins: A married couple who struggled to conceive only discovered they were twins when they went through IVF. The unnamed couple underwent the treatment to help them have a baby. But doctors at the fertility lab noticed their DNA was abnormally similar. At first, lab technicians believed the pair may be unwitting cousins, but soon ruled that out because the DNA was too similar. Eventually doctors confronted the pair, who burst out in laughter when they were asked if they were related. All of these reports were based on a single source, an article published on 13 April 2017 on the Mississippi Herald web site: Jackson husband & wife shocked after DNA test reveals they are biological twins A doctor at a fertility clinic in the Mississippi capital of Jackson has made a startling revelation concerning a couple who sought treatment at the center. The married pair, who cannot be named to due to patient confidentiality restrictions, had been struggling to conceive and came to the clinic to take part in the IVF program. 'During the in vitro fertilization process, we take a DNA sample from both the male and female to get a profile of their genetic backgrounds,' the doctor involved told Mississippi Herald, whose name must also be suppressed to protect the identities of the patients. 'It's just a routine thing, and we wouldn't normally check to see if there was a relationship between the two samples, but in this case the lab assistant involved was shocked by the similarity of each profile.' The lab assistant summoned the doctor, who knew almost instantly that the patients must have been related. 'My first reaction was that they must have been less-closely related; perhaps they were first cousins, which does happen sometimes. However, looking closer at the samples, I noticed there were way too many similarities.' The doctor consulted the patient's files, and noted with shock that both had the exact same birth dates listed in 1984. 'With this in mind, I was convinced that both patients were fraternal twins.' None of the outlets that republished this story seemed fazed by the fact that the Mississippi Herald report included no verifiable details (such as the byline of the reporter who wrote it, the name of the clinic, the identity of any medical specialist there, or the name of the patients involved). Or that the same site ran a similarly outrageous and non-detailed article about a man who claimed he was sexually seduced by a horse. Or that the Mississippi Herald's web site includes no contact information - no physical address, phone number, or e-mail address - for its office or any of its personnel. Or that there is no such newspaper as the Mississippi Herald (the closest matches are a Biloxi publication called the Mississippi Sun-Herald and Water Valley's small North Mississippi Herald), and the web site purporting to be such only sprang up online a few days before publishing the story referenced above. Or that the story was virtually identical word-for-word (save for the change in locale) to one published by the web site of another non-existent newspaper, the Denver Inquirer, back in December 2016 (also just after that site's establishment): In short, both the Mississippi Herald and the Denver Inquirer are fake newspaper sites set up for no other ostensible purpose than to spread fictitious stories. And a number of online 'news' publications ran with one of their fictitious stories without having made the slightest attempt to verify it, based on nothing more than one dubious source that should have raised a plethora of red flags in a real newsroom. | In short, both the Mississippi Herald and the Denver Inquirer are fake newspaper sites set up for no other ostensible purpose than to spread fictitious stories. And a number of online 'news' publications ran with one of their fictitious stories without having made the slightest attempt to verify it, based on nothing more than one dubious source that should have raised a plethora of red flags in a real newsroom. | [
"10316-proof-03-mh.jpg",
"10316-proof-07-dna_testing_fb.jpg",
"10316-proof-12-di.jpg"
] |
A couple seeking to conceive via IVF discovered through DNA testing that they were fraternal twins. | Contradiction | In mid-April 2017, a number of online publications in the U.S. and UK (including the Daily Mail, Fox News, the Inquisitr, Metro, the Mirror, and the Evening Standard) published accounts of a couple who supposedly sought treatment to conceive via IVF, only to discover to their shock that they were biological twins: A married couple who struggled to conceive only discovered they were twins when they went through IVF. The unnamed couple underwent the treatment to help them have a baby. But doctors at the fertility lab noticed their DNA was abnormally similar. At first, lab technicians believed the pair may be unwitting cousins, but soon ruled that out because the DNA was too similar. Eventually doctors confronted the pair, who burst out in laughter when they were asked if they were related. All of these reports were based on a single source, an article published on 13 April 2017 on the Mississippi Herald web site: Jackson husband & wife shocked after DNA test reveals they are biological twins A doctor at a fertility clinic in the Mississippi capital of Jackson has made a startling revelation concerning a couple who sought treatment at the center. The married pair, who cannot be named to due to patient confidentiality restrictions, had been struggling to conceive and came to the clinic to take part in the IVF program. 'During the in vitro fertilization process, we take a DNA sample from both the male and female to get a profile of their genetic backgrounds,' the doctor involved told Mississippi Herald, whose name must also be suppressed to protect the identities of the patients. 'It's just a routine thing, and we wouldn't normally check to see if there was a relationship between the two samples, but in this case the lab assistant involved was shocked by the similarity of each profile.' The lab assistant summoned the doctor, who knew almost instantly that the patients must have been related. 'My first reaction was that they must have been less-closely related; perhaps they were first cousins, which does happen sometimes. However, looking closer at the samples, I noticed there were way too many similarities.' The doctor consulted the patient's files, and noted with shock that both had the exact same birth dates listed in 1984. 'With this in mind, I was convinced that both patients were fraternal twins.' None of the outlets that republished this story seemed fazed by the fact that the Mississippi Herald report included no verifiable details (such as the byline of the reporter who wrote it, the name of the clinic, the identity of any medical specialist there, or the name of the patients involved). Or that the same site ran a similarly outrageous and non-detailed article about a man who claimed he was sexually seduced by a horse. Or that the Mississippi Herald's web site includes no contact information - no physical address, phone number, or e-mail address - for its office or any of its personnel. Or that there is no such newspaper as the Mississippi Herald (the closest matches are a Biloxi publication called the Mississippi Sun-Herald and Water Valley's small North Mississippi Herald), and the web site purporting to be such only sprang up online a few days before publishing the story referenced above. Or that the story was virtually identical word-for-word (save for the change in locale) to one published by the web site of another non-existent newspaper, the Denver Inquirer, back in December 2016 (also just after that site's establishment): In short, both the Mississippi Herald and the Denver Inquirer are fake newspaper sites set up for no other ostensible purpose than to spread fictitious stories. And a number of online 'news' publications ran with one of their fictitious stories without having made the slightest attempt to verify it, based on nothing more than one dubious source that should have raised a plethora of red flags in a real newsroom. | In short, both the Mississippi Herald and the Denver Inquirer are fake newspaper sites set up for no other ostensible purpose than to spread fictitious stories. And a number of online 'news' publications ran with one of their fictitious stories without having made the slightest attempt to verify it, based on nothing more than one dubious source that should have raised a plethora of red flags in a real newsroom. | [
"10316-proof-03-mh.jpg",
"10316-proof-07-dna_testing_fb.jpg",
"10316-proof-12-di.jpg"
] |
The factual claims made in a Facebook video entitled 'Is your food fake or real? Find out with these 16 easy tests at home!' are valid. | Contradiction | In June 2019, tens of millions of Facebook users watched and shared a viral video that purported to demonstrate '16 easy tests' to determine whether certain foods and drinks were 'fake' or 'real.' The video was posted on 1 June by Blossom, a digital publishing brand that creates viral content, often in the form of 'listicles' - '8 ways to transform and upgrade your wardrobe,' '3 oddly satisfying stress relievers,' '4 super cool ways to use ice cube trays,' and so on. Within a few days, viewers shared the video more than 3 million times and viewed it more than 85 million times. However, it was removed from Facebook by 10 June 2019, after this fact check was originally published. The video purported to show short clips of DIY food 'experiments,' along with subtitles that add a degree of detail: The 16 tests outlined in the video constituted a mixture of falsehoods, recycled urban myths, one or two experiments that have a grain of truth to them, and several tests that address types of adulteration that are absent from the United States and many other countries but have been reported in India and parts of the developing world. On the whole, the video served its viewers poorly as a source of reliable information about food safety and adulteration. In a statement sent in response to the spread of the video, a spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told Snopes: Federal law requires that food is safe and properly labeled. For example, all food additives and color additives must be approved by FDA before market entry, and the labeling of food must be truthful and not misleading. We take food contamination and fraud very seriously and do take action when problems arise, especially if it appears that the adulteration was intentional. Consumers should rest assured that most of the practices illustrated in this video are not legal in the U.S. and any FDA-regulated product that violates or appears to the violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may be subject to seizure, mandatory recall, or other enforcement action ... Consumers should be able to trust that the foods they eat are safe and videos like these can undermine the confidence consumers have in the FDA's role in maintaining the safety our food supply ... For its part, First Media, the company that operates the Blossom brand, told us via a spokesperson: 'The video does not claim that all products or specific manufacturers include these materials, nor does it make any health or nutritional suggestions or recommendations. They are demonstrations of things we consider to be important for our global audience, however this content is intended only for informational purposes and as entertainment.' We sent the video and its 16 claims to Eric Decker, head of the Department of Food Science in the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, one of the leading academic food science programs in the United States. Here is our breakdown of the 16 tests, based on Decker's assessments and the supporting evidence provided to Snopes by First Media. 1. 'Processed cheese with chemicals is difficult to melt': FALSE The claim that processed cheese is hard to melt is an old one, and a subject we have previously examined in detail. It first emerged in late 2014 when internet users began posting videos of themselves setting fire to slices of American cheese in an effort to prove that the cheese was 'fake.' When asked for supporting evidence, a spokesperson for First Media directed us to a 2015 Vice News article and wrote: 'Processed cheese contains an added ingredient known as 'Emulsifying Salt' which is known to 'help bind fats, proteins, and water in cheese.'' Interestingly, the Vice article that First Media relied on as evidence carried the headline 'Stop Setting Your Cheese on Fire' and warned: 'Videos purporting to demonstrate the evil stuff in processed cheese have started making the rounds online. Problem is, they don't prove anything except how little we know about our food.' In response to this section of the video, Decker told us: 'That's exactly the opposite of reality ... There are additives that are added to processed cheese to help the cheese melt ... They take real cheese and they add what they call chelating salts and things like citric acid. That helps break the protein [casein] down. The protein in regular cheese is very aggregated together. So when you melt it, you see these clumps. If you can get those proteins to come apart, then it's much easier to melt the cheese.' [Emphasis is added]. 2. 'Rice is mixed with plastic bits to increase manufacturer profit': FALSE This is another canard. Every so often, for the best part of the past decade, highly questionable and thinly sourced reports have been emerging from China and other Asian countries, as well as parts of Africa, claiming widespread adulteration of rice with plastic. So far, no reliable corroboration of those claims exists, which have caused panic in some countries and have been confirmed as hoaxes. If you add plastic to rice and then cook that mixture, you might be able to identify the plastic by its melting, turning clear, or sticking to the frying pan. But no reliable evidence exists that such rice is bought or sold anywhere in the world (not least the United States) in the first place. When asked by Snopes, First Media declined to say how and where they obtained the rice shown in the video, and whether they had added anything to the rice before filming this portion of the video. 3. 'Baby food contains ground-up rocks advertised as fortified calcium': UNPROVEN First Media told us this test was based on one included in a similar 2015 video, which can be viewed here. However, that video purportedly showed a magnet being used to locate and extract iron filings, not calcium, in baby food. We put that discrepancy to First Media, but they declined to clarify what their video actually showed, and also refused to say how and where they had obtained the baby food purportedly shown in the video or whether they had added anything to it before filming. Either way, the video is framed in a highly misleading way, describing fortified calcium as 'ground-up rocks.' Calcium, an earth metal, can be found naturally in rocks and other components of the earth's surface, especially in limestone. On this subject, Decker told us that most supplemental calcium was ultimately derived from a rock. 'That's what's in lime [stone]. You can get calcium that comes from oyster shells, you can get calcium that comes from all different sources.' He said the description of fortified calcium as 'ground-up rocks' was 'very misleading.' 'The calcium they put in baby food would be no different than what they put in any food.' 4. 'Synthetic supplements burn! Natural supplements won't!': FALSE 'That's just bullshit,' Decker told us. 'There's just no basis to any of that. Most synthetic supplements are chemically identical to natural supplements.' In response to our request for supporting evidence, First Media directed us to another questionable 2015 video, which can be viewed here. That video also showed a tray of supplements - both capsules and tablets - baked in an oven. Those that burned or melted were identified as synthetic, those that did not were identified as natural. When asked by us, First Media refused to identify the supplements shown in their own video, and refused to say where and how they had obtained them. 5. 'Glue' in meat: MOSTLY TRUE This section has to do with something called transglutaminase, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) describes as 'an enzyme approved for use as a binder to form smaller cuts of meat into a larger serving of meat. It is a natural substance derived from fermented bacteria ...' Transglutaminase is sometimes colloquially referred to as 'meat glue,' but First Media's video had the potential to cause unnecessary alarm or misinformation by describing it simply as 'glue,' raising the specter of synthetic acrylic and epoxy glues being surreptitiously embedded in meat products. We can't verify that what is shown in the video is in fact meat glue, but we do know that transglutaminase is regarded as safe by U.S. federal authorities. According to the USDA, 'TG enzyme is a food binder that has been used in meat and poultry products for over 10 years. It was determined to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 for use to improve texture and cooking yields in various standardized meat and poultry products and as a protein cross-linking agent to fabricate or reform cuts of meat.' 6. Washing powder is added to ice cream 'for shine and lightness': FALSE As evidence in relation to this section of the video, First Media sent Snopes a link to a 2018 post on a relatively obscure Indian blog which claimed that ice cream is sometimes adulterated with 'Detergents or washing powder to improve smoothness and induce frothing thereby adding to the volume.' The warning appears to have originated with speeches and checklists prepared in 2012 and 2013 by Sitaram Dixit, then chairman of a non-profit organization called the Consumer Guidance Society of India. In a 2013 document, Dixit outlined two tests for determining the presence of washing powder in ice cream: '1. Put some lemon juice [in the ice cream], bubbles are observed if washing powder is present. 2. Add 1 ml of Hydrochloric acid (HCl) to a little of [sic] Sugar. If you observe effervescence, then washing powder is present.' Despite this warning, no evidence exists of a pattern of behavior whereby retailers or manufacturers do, in fact, add washing powder or detergent to ice cream in order to add to its frothiness. We found no specific reports of any such incidents, either from India or elsewhere. In the context of the United States, we checked the FDA database of product-complaint reports from 2004 to 2018, and found not a single report of washing powder or detergent having been added to ice cream, or any other food or beverage product. First Media's video might well show lemon juice being added to a mixture of ice cream and washing powder. (The company again refused to say where they obtained the ice cream shown in the video and whether they had added anything to it before filming.) However, the underlying premise of this experiment - that manufacturers or retailers do, in fact, add washing powder to ice cream 'for shine and lightness' - is false. Most of the remaining 10 claims can be traced back to guidelines published in 2015 by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), a legitimate statutory agency operating under the aegis of India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Indian government. Food adulteration is a serious and widespread problem in India, to an extent that is not replicated in the United States and many other developed countries. Some of the remaining tests in the Blossom video were based on scientifically valid experiments, but they had to do with types of food and drink adulteration that either simply do not occur, or are not prevalent in the United States and many other countries. Although Blossom has an international audience, the brand served its viewers - particularly those living outside India - poorly by failing to mention any of that crucial context. 7. Milk is adulterated with rice water, but will turn blue in the presence of seaweed: MIXTURE This test can be traced to the FSSAI guidelines, known as 'Detect Adulteration with Rapid Test' (DART), which set out the following method: 'Boil 2-3 ml of sample with 5ml of water. Cool and add 2-3 drops of tincture of iodine. Formation of blue colour indicates the presence of starch. (In the case of milk, addition of water and boiling is not required)'. As First Media explained to us by email, they used seaweed in their test because it is a good source of iodine. We haven't been able to verify the iodine content of the particular seaweed they used, nor the composition of the milk samples featured in the videos. (The company refused to say where they obtained the milk or whether they added anything to it before filming, and they declined to answer a question about the prevalence of starch adulteration of milk in the United States.) However, the test is at least based on an FSSAI experiment that is scientifically legitimate, as confirmed by Decker. Nonetheless, it is a test that addresses a type of adulteration (starch in milk) that is not prevalent in the United States and many other developed countries. By failing to provide that crucial context, this section of the video presented a highly misleading impression to tens of millions of viewers. 8. 'Old produce is often dyed to make it look fresh' (and rubbing it with oil and water will reveal the deception): MIXTURE This test also originates in the FSSAI guidelines, which set out the following method: 'Take a cotton ball soaked in water or vegetable oil. (conduct the test separately). Rub the outer red surface of the sweet potato. If cotton absorbs colour, then it indicates the usage of rhodamine B for colouring the outer surface of sweet potato.' Clearly, food products in India feature color additives such as rhodamine B to an extent or frequency that warrants the intervention of the FSSAI. However, the same is not true in the United States. Since 1983, the FDA has banned the two types of rhodamine B for use in drugs and cosmetics due to their carcinogenic properties. Since rhodamine B is not affirmatively listed as safe for use in food, it is therefore also effectively banned for use in food. For that reason, food manufacturers - subject to FDA inspections and fearful of punishment for violating food safety regulations - don't use rhodamine B. In rare cases when they do, the FDA takes action against them. In light of these facts, it's not clear where or how First Media obtained the sweet potato shown in the video, or whether they added anything to it before filming. 9. 'Coffee with additives floats, pure coffee sinks': UNPROVEN This test can also ultimately be traced back to the FSSAI guidelines, but those guidelines set out methods to test for the presence of two specific substances apparently used in India to adulterate coffee: clay and chicory powder. In testing for clay, the FSSAI advised, 'Add ½ teaspoon of coffee powder in a transparent glass of water. Stir for a minute and keep it aside for 5 minutes. Observe the glass at the bottom. Pure coffee powder will not leave any clay particles at the bottom. If coffee powder is adulterated, clay particles will settle at the bottom.' In the illustration used to demonstrate the clay test, the unadulterated coffee floats on the surface of the glass of water, something Blossom claimed was characteristic of adulterated coffee: In testing for the presence of chicory powder, the FSSAI guidelines advised: 'Take a transparent glass of water. Add a teaspoon of coffee powder. Coffee powder floats over the water but chicory begins to sink.' Here once again, the illustration shows pure coffee as floating on the surface of the water, while the chicory-adulterated coffee sinks. This is the opposite of what Blossom's video claimed when it stated 'pure coffee sinks.' For these reasons, among others, this particular test should not be considered reliable. We asked First Media to specify the kinds of additives that were tested in its video, but we did not receive a response to that particular question. 10. Fake salt contains chalk and turns water cloudy: MIXTURE Again, the practice of adulterating salt with chalk is one primarily seen in India. We could find no evidence of such a practice in the United States. As such, the 'chalk in salt' test derives from the FSSAI guidelines, which outline the following advice: 'Stir a spoonful of sample of salt in a glass of water. The presence of chalk will make [the] solution white and other insoluble impurities will settle down.' 11. 'Old split peas are coated in green dye to disguise them': MIXTURE It's not clear how widespread the practice of adding green coloring to split peas is, but it has featured in unconfirmed news reports emanating from China and India, and it has also been the subject of viral hoaxes in India. It appears to be prevalent enough in India that the FSSAI included it in some guidelines, advising: 'Detection of artificial colour on green peas: Take little amount of green peas in a transparent glass. Add water to it and mix well. Let it stand for half an hour. Clear separation of colour in water indicates adulteration.' However, no evidence shows that the practice is prevalent in the United States or other developed countries. Furthermore, it's not clear that Blossom's video actually shows green dye being removed from split peas, as opposed to the process of chlorophyll degradation, which occurs naturally when green split peas are exposed to the heat of boiling water. 12. 'Pure spices burn and ignite, impure spices don't': UNPROVEN This claim too can be traced back to the FSSAI guidelines, but those guidelines specifically related to asafoetida, a gum that is used widely in Indian cuisine. By contrast, the Blossom video referred only to 'spices,' and showed a spoonful of turmeric. The FSSAI guidelines advised: 'Detection of foreign resin in asafoetida: Burn small quantity of asafoetida in a stainless steel spoon. Pure asafoetida will burn like camphor [a flammable wax]. Adulterated asafoetida will not produce bright flame like camphor.' While asafoetida adulteration might well be prevalent in India, and lighting a flame under a spoonful of it might indeed be a scientifically valid means of determining whether the asafoetida contains adulterants, it simply cannot be assumed that the same test works for other spices. As Decker observed: 'Trying to extend that test to turmeric isn't necessarily accurate, because those two spices have very different compositions.' We asked First Media for a list of spices to which the 'flame' test applied, but we did not receive a response to that question. 13. Some honey is diluted with water and diluted honey extinguishes a flame in a candle wick: MOSTLY TRUE This test also originates in the FSSAI guidelines, which state: 'Take a cotton wick dipped in a pure honey and light with a match stick. Pure honey will burn. If adulterated, the presence of water will not allow the honey to burn. If it does, it will produce a cracking sound.' The FSSAI test appears to be valid, and appears to have been replicated by the makers of the video. However, it's worth noting that in the context of the United States, the primary way in which honey is adulterated is by being mixed with corn syrup or cane sugar, not by being diluted with water. In light of that fact, it's not clear where First Media obtained diluted honey, or whether they themselves added water to pure honey before filming. 14. 'Pure tea doesn't stain, impure tea stains instantly': MIXTURE Black teas get their characteristic dark colors from the tannins they contain. As such, even unadulterated tea might leave a stain, as anyone who has dropped a tea bag on to a garment or piece of paper can attest. However, the FSSAI guidelines do contain a test that is designed to determine not just whether a tea is 'impure,' as the video ambiguously claims, but specifically whether old tea leaves have been artificially colored with coal-tar dye: 'Detection of exhausted tea in tea leaves: Take a filter paper and spread [a] few tea leaves. Sprinkle with water to wet the filter paper. Wash the filter paper under tap water and observe the stains against light. Pure tea leaves will not stain the filter paper. If coal tar is present, it will immediately stain the filter paper.' We asked First Media to clarify what they meant by 'impure' tea, but we did not receive a response to that question. As such, we cannot evaluate the validity or reliability of the test shown in the video. 15. 'If butter contains oil, added sugar will turn pink': UNPROVEN First Media cited a source that claimed: 'Add a pinch of sugar to a teaspoon of melted ghee in a bottle. Shake well. Check it after 5 minutes, if you see the colour change to red, then it contains vegetable oil.' That purported test can ultimately be traced back to a document published by Dixit, the former chairman of the Consumer Guidance Society of India, whose claims formed the basis of the 'washing powder in ice cream' test above. Dixit outlined an experiment for determining the presence of vanaspati, a kind of vegetable shortening, in butter or ghee (clarified butter): 'Take one teaspoonful of melted ghee or butter with equal quantity of Conc. Hydrochloric acid in a test tube. Add to it a pinch of cane sugar. Shake well for one minute and let it stand for five minutes. Crimson red colour in lower layer shows the presence of Vanaspati.' First Media's video claimed only that the presence of 'oil' (presumed to be vegetable oil) would cause sugar to turn pink in butter. However, the source the company cited and the original source both claimed the sugar would turn red, not pink, and the original source said the sugar would turn 'crimson red,' and only after the inclusion of concentrated hydrochloric acid in the mixture. Without any further details about the precise ingredients and process employed by First Media (which the company failed to provide), and in light of these discrepancies, we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the validity of the test shown in the video. 16. Some fresh produce is coated in wax, and warm water removes the wax: TRUE This is the only clearly accurate claim in the video. We can't say for certain that what is shown in the video is indeed wax being removed from a bell pepper by warm water, but there's no doubt that producers and retailers do sometimes apply wax coatings to fruit and vegetables, as Decker outlined: 'That's common. Vegetables are waxed a lot. The main purposes of waxing the vegetable, one of them is to give it that shiny appearance, but the other one is to prevent moisture loss.' So the application of a thin coating of wax is a real phenomenon, as the video states, but this doesn't indicate that the food is 'fake' - rather, it's a safe, FDA-approved way to help the produce look shinier and last longer. As Decker observed: 'All these waxes are edible, anyway. They're approved food additives.' In summary, this particular section of the video is actually accurate, but it shouldn't be a cause of too much concern for consumers.Recent Updates Update [10 June 2019]: Updated to reflect the fact that Blossom/First Media's 1 June video had been removed from Facebook. | In summary, this particular section of the video is actually accurate, but it shouldn't be a cause of too much concern for consumers.Recent Updates Update [10 June 2019]: Updated to reflect the fact that Blossom/First Media's 1 June video had been removed from Facebook. | [] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump once said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting. | Contradiction | In September 2018, a quotation emerged online which appeared to offer support for the widely-held perception that President Donald Trump doesn't even like man's best friend: dogs. A Facebook user posted a meme to that effect on 10 September 2018, quoting Trump as having said 'I never understood why people like dogs. Dogs are disgusting': We could find no evidence of Donald Trump's ever having said this, despite checking newspaper archives, the archives of the New York Times (which has closely covered his career and pronouncements for several decades), the FactBase web site's archive of interview and speech transcripts, and the Internet Archive's 'Trump Archive.' The quotation appears to be bogus. However, does it allude to a real dislike of dogs on the part of the 45th president? The perception that President Trump dislikes or even hates dogs is a widely-held one. An October 2017 article by Newsweek article made just such a claim, asking 'Why does President Trump hate dogs?' As evidence that Trump felt this way about canines, the article pointed to three pieces of evidence variously cited in a series of similar articles about his alleged negative sentiments and comportment toward dogs. 'Like a dog' Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again-just watch. He can do much better! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012 The first piece of evidence is the fact that Trump often uses 'dog' as an insult. A cursory glance at his Twitter history reveals a penchant for calling his perceived enemies or rivals 'dogs,' or describing their failures or shortcomings in somewhat unusual canine similes: 'choked like a dog,' 'got fired like a dog,' 'sweating like a dog.' However, this habit does not necessarily demonstrate a fervent dislike of actual dogs. It could just as plausibly be part of the president's idiosyncratic way of speaking and writing, what the Huffington Post's Nick Wing aptly described as a 'lack of oratorical creativity.' The logic of the argument is as follows: Donald Trump compares people to dogs as a way of insulting them, therefore Donald Trump thinks being a dog is undesirable, so it must follow that Donald Trump hates dogs. However, if one were consistent in applying this logical framework to all simile-based insults (or praise), one would end up forced to make some pretty bizarre claims: that anyone who calls someone else a 'rat' for being disloyal is thereby declaring their hatred for actual rats, that anyone who uses the word 'snake' to criticize someone else's duplicity must by necessity hate actual snakes, that anyone who praises someone as being a 'wily old fox' must therefore have a love for that particular species, and so on. President Trump's 2012 declaration that Robert Pattinson should not reunite with Kristen Stewart because 'she cheated on him like a dog' is evidence of his idiolect, and might suggest he doesn't fully understand how similes work. But that insult, along with all the others, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he hates dogs. No dog in the White House The second piece of evidence cited by Newsweek (and others) is the fact that President Trump is the first occupant of the White House in more than a century not to own a dog. (According to the Washington Post, William McKinley was the last dog-free president before Trump.) Again, the logic of this argument collapses fairly easily. The absence of a dog from the White House (although unusual from a historical point of view) is not evidence that the president dislikes dogs. If one were consistent in drawing that conclusion from that premise, one would be forced to claim that the many millions of people who don't keep pet dogs in their homes are motivated by a dislike of dogs, when clearly other reasons might be more primary: allergies, time constraints, frequent travel, and so on. In fact, President Trump has reportedly already given an explanation for why the First Family does not currently keep a dog at the White House: he's just too busy. In the same Newsweek article whose headline read 'Why does President Donald Trump hate dogs?' the president's friend Lois Pope recounted how she identified a Goldendoodle named Patton as the perfect dog for the family and offered to arrange for the Trumps to adopt him: [Pope] came across the gentle teddy bear, and presented him to Trump and son Barron at the Mar-a-Lago, where she has been a member for 24 years. 'I went through great trouble to find the perfect dog for Donald Trump,' she told Newsweek. 'He would've been a perfect dog for any president.' Patton is hypoallergenic, loyal and beautiful, she said. But it seems Patton wasn't destined for the White House - Pope said Trump told her he was too busy for a dog, and she, in turn, was actually relieved she wouldn't have to give up the 'lovable giant pup' with whom she had fallen in love. It is not intellectually supportable to speculate or conclude that the reason President Trump doesn't keep a dog in the White House is because he doesn't like them, when several plausible alternative explanations exist, and the president has already reportedly provided one (i.e., that he's too busy). 'Not a dog fan' The third piece of evidence typically cited by those claiming Donald Trump hates dogs (including Newsweek) is arguably the strongest, but it is challenged by other available evidence. In her memoir Raising Trump, the president's ex-wife Ivana Trump wrote that he only reluctantly agreed to allow her poodle Chappy to live with them in New York and claimed he was 'not a dog fan': So I spent my first month in New York exploring the city with my poodle at my side. Donald was not a dog fan. When I told him I was bringing Chappy with me to New York, he said, 'No.' 'It's me and Chappy or no one!' I insisted, and that was that ... I've told you about Chappy and his deep love for my chinchilla coat. He had an equal dislike of Donald. Whenever Donald went near my closet, Chappy would bark at him territorially. Newsweek cited that section as evidence that 'the feeling was mutual' between the future president and his wife's dog Chappy. However, the very next line in the book, omitted from the Newsweek article, added nuance to the picture of Donald Trump as a dog-hater who feuded with his wife's pet poodle: 'Despite their issues with each other, Donald never objected to Chappy's sleeping on my side of the bed.' Donald Trump has gone on record stating his dislike for pitbulls, specifically, saying in a 2008 interview with radio host Howard Stern that: I'm not a big fan of pit bulls. I've known too many people who were badly hurt by pits. I know a girl who is beautiful who is taking care of a dog who was a pit bull. The dog ripped her apart. So I'm not a big fan. You know these people come out, 'oh the poor dog the poor dog.' These are trained killers these dogs. However, we could not find any similarly negative statements about dogs in general, and we did find evidence which might indicate that, at the very least, Trump is not as averse to dogs as is widely believed. Evidence to the contrary From 2010 to 2015, the Westminster Kennel Club in New York kept an annual tradition in which the winner of the Westminster Dog Show would visit Donald Trump for a photo-op at his office in Trump Tower, as shown in photographs from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (below): In 2013, the Westminster Kennel Club even wrote on Facebook that Trump had a 'genuine affection for dogs,' next to a photograph of him smiling and holding that year's winner, 'Banana Joe': In 2017, the Associated Press spoke to several people associated with the Westminster Dog Show, who described Trump as being welcoming and at ease while spending time with the illustrious competition's winners: People in the room for Trump's visits, in those pre-presidential days, describe him as friendly and relaxed, smiling broadly while spending up to a half-hour with the victors. A self-confessed 'germaphobe,' Trump didn't seem bothered a bit by the close brushes with the dogs, either. ...'He could not have been more engaging,' said [David] Frei, host of Westminster telecasts for 27 years. 'He did not have any qualms.' Will Alexander, who was the handler for the 2015 champion 'Miss P' and was interviewed by the Associated Press for its 2017 article, told us by phone that Trump seemed genuinely comfortable around the beagle during their 30- to 45-minute visit at Trump Tower, holding her and talking to her before and after the cameras were on him: He wanted to hold her right away. It wasn't just for a photoshoot ... I remember when he finally did put her down, he had some beagle hair on his suit - because beagles tend to shed quite a bit - and somebody went to wipe it off, but he told them to leave him alone, that it was fine. He didn't come across to me as someone who didn't like dogs ... He seemed quite genuine about it ... He seemed like he wanted her there, and he wanted to hold her and talk to her - he seemed quite comfortable with her. Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | Conclusion Ultimately, we can't say for certain how Donald Trump feels about dogs. However, at least as much evidence (if not more) suggests that he is comfortable around them as suggests that he finds them aversive, or even disgusting. The claim that he 'hates dogs' appears to be based on shaky logic (he doesn't own one and he insults people by comparing them to dogs) and relatively scant evidence (his ex-wife said he was 'not a dog fan,' but she also said that he had no objection to sharing a bed with one). It is also contradicted by photographic evidence and first-hand accounts of Trump's cheerful demeanor around dogs. | [
"10755-proof-02-trump-dog-photo-2.jpg",
"10755-proof-08-10441385_10155220197675725_8756984795508609976_n.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
After being fed a spoiled shrimp, an upset octopus escaped from its aquarium, walked down a hallway, then threw the spoiled shrimp at its handler. | Contradiction | In 2013, a Tumblr user responded to an animated GIF of an octopus escaping an enclosure through a narrow hole by describing an anecdote they had heard from a friend about how a disgruntled octopus once threw a spoiled shrimp at its handler: My buddy read an article about octopus intelligence. It was feeding time, and the handler dumped some shrimp into an octopus' tank. Then he went into another room and sat at his desk. A while later, a shrimp was tossed onto his desk. The octopus, upon finding one bad shrimp in the lot, had grabbed it, escaped its tank, crossed the hall, and threw the expired shrimp at its caretaker. Not only does this showcase their problem-solving capabilities, but also that it could have escaped at any time. It just broke out this time to chuck an off shrimp in indignation at its handler. That's not just intelligence, that's a human-like reaction. Kinda make you wonder exactly how smart these guys can be... The user included the following video in the comment: Although the video is real (it was filmed by a marine biology student named Raymond Deckel at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in 2012), we have not found any evidence to support the viral anecdote that accompanies it. This Tumblr post begins with a bit of a red flag in terms of plausibility as this Tumblr user states that they are relaying a story that they were told by a friend who supposedly heard about it when reading an article. As anyone who has played a game of Telephone can understand, the original message can get lost in translation as it passes from one speaker to the next. In fact, this anecdote has evolved a bit as it has circulated online. Here's a 2019 Reddit post in which the 'shrimp' changes to a 'fish': Obligatory 'not aquarium staff but,' I've heard loads of stories about octopus and cuttlefish where a worker fed them some kind of food they didn't like/not prepared the way they liked it and afterwards every time that person walked by the tank the animal would squirt water in their face. I think there was one where the octopus actively climbed out of the tank, found the person down the hall, and threw the fish or whatever at them because they hadn't cut the head off the way it liked. This viral anecdote is also sorely lacking in details. When did this incident take place? At what aquarium? What was the handler's name? What type of octopus? Despite the fact that this anecdote was presented without any evidence in the comments of a Tumblr page in 2013, this piece of octopus lore has continued to circulate on social media. In 2021, eight years after this comment was originally posted, this anecdote was still being shared on social media sites such as Facebook and iFunny. Culum Brown, a professor with the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Australia, told us that he had never heard this anecdote and that he finds it 'unlikely in the extreme': I've not heard about it and it doesn't sound plausible to me. I can imagine an octopus rejecting an off shrimp. I can imagine one escaping and possibly showing up in someone's office. But the tossing of the shrimp at the handler seems unlikely in the extreme. Dr. Jenny Hofmeister, an Environmental Scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife who posts on social media under the @Dr_Octopod handle, also told us that this story wasn't credible. Hofmeister said that while it was plausible that an octopus would reject food, and that it was possible that an octopus would escape its tank, it was highly unlikely that an octopus would seek down its caretaker to hurl a shrimp at them in an act of spite. I find this viral story of an octopus crawling down a hallway to throw a spoiled shrimp at a handler highly improbable. Octopuses frequently escape from their tanks (this is not controversial and has endless documentation; I, myself, have witnessed this on at least a dozen occasions). Octopuses also can be pretty picky about their food; they often only eat live prey (though I know many aquarists who successfully feed frozen/dead food items to their octopuses). Some octopus species will clean up a den area by placing prey remains (clam shells, shrimp carapaces, etc.) in a pile outside or near their dens. It seems like this viral story took that original story from that 2002 book, and combined/mixed it up with all these other behaviors an octopus is capable of to create one highly unlikely tale. When we tried to trace this tale back to its origins (what article did this friend supposedly read?), we found a similar anecdote in the 2002 book 'The Octopus and the Orangutan: More True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity' by Eugene Linden. Linden wrote about one experience of Jean Boal, a biologist specializing in octopus behavior at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, while feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (note: Boal's surname was misspelled 'Baul' in the published version of this passage): Octopuses are sticklers for fresh food, and one day Jean remembers that she was feeding a group of California mud flat octopuses (binaculoides) a meal of squid and shrimp. The food was a little past its peak of freshness. She would give each animal its first portion of food, and then go back to the beginning of the line of tanks to give them a second serving. When she got back to the first tank, a female octopus was waiting at the front of the tank. At this point, Jean says the octopus made eye contact with her while taking the piece of shrimp in one of her tentacles. Maintaining eye contact all the while, she then crawled over to the drain at the bottom of the tank and unceremoniously shoved the offending meal in the opening, where it was carried away. What makes the story so funny and arresting is the eye contact and the dexterity that enabled the animal to hold the spoiled shrimp while she slithered across the bottom of the tank. There is something about eye signals and manual dexterity that suggests intelligent behavior. The degree to which scientists succeed or fail in coming up with plausible explanations of what an animal is doing when it appears to demonstrate awareness or some other higher mental ability is primarily an issue for science, not an issue for the animals in question (although it has some bearing on animals simply because we tend to be nicer to creatures we deem intelligent - perhaps this explains why we humans tend to be so stingy in acknowledging intelligence in other animals). The octopus that snubbed Jean Baul's spoiled shrimp was either making a statement or it was not. While totally outside the scope of any investigation of octopus intelligence, such anecdotes are important because they remind scientists and others that animals have lives outside out experiments and theorizing. They are also important because they occasionally jolt a scientists into putting aside blinkered expectations that come with years of exposure to conventional wisdom on how to look for intelligence, and in which animals. Several other anecdotes seemingly show the intelligence of the octopus (none, however, appear to involve an octopus escaping its tank to track down its handler and throw a spoiled a shrimp at them). An octopus named Otto at the Sea Star Aquarium in Germany, for example, would cause power outages by squirting water at the lights. The aquarium's director Elfriede Kummer talked to reporter Andrea Seabrook on NPR's 'All Things Considered' about Otto the octopus: SEABROOK: Elfriede Kummer is the aquarium's director. One recent night, she says, the aquarium's whole electrical system shorted out. They fixed it in the morning, but the next night it happened again. Then again. Ms. ELFRIEDE KUMMER (Director, Sea Star Aquarium, Germany): Every day for like two or three days, when you get into the aquarium, you know, it's just silent. Nothing is working. And on the third day, we just had to know what was happening, what is going on. SEABROOK: So, a few of the staff decided to spend the night at the aquarium, waiting and watching. And what they saw - nothing. Ms. KUMMER: But in the morning, I turned it on, and saw that our octopus, Otto, was just shooting water at his lights. SEABROOK: Otto the Octopus, the six-month-old rabble-rouser, had climbed up the side of his tank and was squirting water at the 2,000-watt spotlight overhead. It turns out the aquarium staff had trained Otto to aim and squirt water, but at visitors, not at the lights. Otto himself had made the connection between turning out the lights and causing a commotion. In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | In sum: There doesn't appear to be any available evidence to support the claim that an octopus once escaped its tank, crawled down a hallway, and threw a spoiled shrimp in disgust at its handler. This viral anecdote appears to be an exaggerated version of an anecdote in which an octopus stuffed a shrimp down a drain that was relayed by a biologist in a 2002 book about animal intelligence.Recent Updates Updated [18 May 2021]: Article updated from Unproven to False after consulting a marine biologist. | [
"10811-proof-10-octopus-1.jpg"
] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
Before the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, it was illegal to profit from healthcare. | Contradiction | A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente! This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. For-Profit Health Care Existed Decades Before the HMO Act of 1973 The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees' health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals - and the charitable religious groups that funded them - afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues' charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of 'providing high-quality, affordable health care for all.' In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues' board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that 'before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care,' as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. The HMO Act of 1973 Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the 'member,' whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or 'own') selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the 'conservative appropriation of liberal reform': Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixon's support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. 'A Personal Favor for Nixon's Friend and Campaign Financier Edgar Kaiser' The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixon's who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaiser's plan to be recognized: While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his 'health maintenance organization' vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwood's ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the meme's claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the 'first taste of federal subsidies' incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that 'the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make': Ehrlichman: 'Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ...' President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: '... the less care they give them, the more money they make.' President Nixon: 'Fine.' [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] '... and the incentives run the right way.' President Nixon: 'Not bad.' Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixon's later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: Despite Ehrlichman's miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called 'health maintenance' an important part of 'a new national health strategy.' He continued: 'If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents,' Nixon said, 'fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | In short, we should build a true 'health' system-and not a 'sickness' system alone. '... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy.' All told, little factual basis supports the meme's assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. | [] |
A video shows people in China tearing down a 5G tower in an attempt to stop the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus disease. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In March 2020, a video circulated on social media supposedly showing a 5G tower being torn down in China because people feared it was causing the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The video reached a wider audience on April 1, when actor Woody Harrelson shared it on Instagram: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Woody Harrelson (@woodyharrelson) on Apr 1, 2020 at 11:13am PDT The video does document a real incident in China, however, it was not filmed in 2020 and has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic or 5G (fifth-generation wireless network) towers. As the new coronavirus spread around the globe in 2020, a conspiracy theory holding that it was human-made started to take hold in certain communities. We've examined this claim at length and found no evidence to support it. (Read more about the origins and scientific failings of the 'bioweapon' conspiracy theory here.) An offshoot of this theory claimed that the coronavirus had actually been caused by 5G cellular towers. 5G was already a 'boogeyman' in the conspiracy theory community. We've previously addressed a claim that cell tower workers were required to wear hazmat suits while working on 5G equipment (false); another held that Japan was banning the development of 5G over health concerns (false, they are actually investing more in the technology.) In this case, the main piece of 'evidence' supporting the claim that 5G towers caused COVID-19 is that China started to install 5G towers around the same time that the coronavirus started to spread in the country (around November 2019). While this is true, the mere fact that two things occurred at around the same time doesn't mean they're related (correlation doesn't imply causation). Although China did start unrolling 5G cell service around the same time that the virus started to spread, this was not the first time that 5G towers were in operation. In fact, 5G networks were in operation in the United States as early as July 2019. South Korea and Germany both had 5G towers installed as early as April 2019. So ask yourself: If 5G towers really caused COVID-19, why weren't cases of the disease reported much earlier in countries such as the United States, South Korea, or Germany? Furthermore, we already know a lot about the true origins of this strain of coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and now with this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir. As for the video displayed above, the footage comes from August 2019 (before the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China) and shows anti-surveillance protesters tearing down a 'smart' lamppost in Hong Kong. Here's the original video from the Guardian: The Guardian reported: Activists targeted several 'smart' lamp-posts equipped with sensors, cameras and data networks in anti-surveillance protests over the weekend. Protesters, many of whom disguised their identities with masks and umbrellas, fear the devices can be used by China to collect personal information. Authorities insist the lamp-posts only collect air quality, traffic and weather data. In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | [] |
A video shows people in China tearing down a 5G tower in an attempt to stop the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus disease. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In March 2020, a video circulated on social media supposedly showing a 5G tower being torn down in China because people feared it was causing the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The video reached a wider audience on April 1, when actor Woody Harrelson shared it on Instagram: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Woody Harrelson (@woodyharrelson) on Apr 1, 2020 at 11:13am PDT The video does document a real incident in China, however, it was not filmed in 2020 and has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic or 5G (fifth-generation wireless network) towers. As the new coronavirus spread around the globe in 2020, a conspiracy theory holding that it was human-made started to take hold in certain communities. We've examined this claim at length and found no evidence to support it. (Read more about the origins and scientific failings of the 'bioweapon' conspiracy theory here.) An offshoot of this theory claimed that the coronavirus had actually been caused by 5G cellular towers. 5G was already a 'boogeyman' in the conspiracy theory community. We've previously addressed a claim that cell tower workers were required to wear hazmat suits while working on 5G equipment (false); another held that Japan was banning the development of 5G over health concerns (false, they are actually investing more in the technology.) In this case, the main piece of 'evidence' supporting the claim that 5G towers caused COVID-19 is that China started to install 5G towers around the same time that the coronavirus started to spread in the country (around November 2019). While this is true, the mere fact that two things occurred at around the same time doesn't mean they're related (correlation doesn't imply causation). Although China did start unrolling 5G cell service around the same time that the virus started to spread, this was not the first time that 5G towers were in operation. In fact, 5G networks were in operation in the United States as early as July 2019. South Korea and Germany both had 5G towers installed as early as April 2019. So ask yourself: If 5G towers really caused COVID-19, why weren't cases of the disease reported much earlier in countries such as the United States, South Korea, or Germany? Furthermore, we already know a lot about the true origins of this strain of coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and now with this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir. As for the video displayed above, the footage comes from August 2019 (before the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China) and shows anti-surveillance protesters tearing down a 'smart' lamppost in Hong Kong. Here's the original video from the Guardian: The Guardian reported: Activists targeted several 'smart' lamp-posts equipped with sensors, cameras and data networks in anti-surveillance protests over the weekend. Protesters, many of whom disguised their identities with masks and umbrellas, fear the devices can be used by China to collect personal information. Authorities insist the lamp-posts only collect air quality, traffic and weather data. In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | [] |
A video shows people in China tearing down a 5G tower in an attempt to stop the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus disease. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In March 2020, a video circulated on social media supposedly showing a 5G tower being torn down in China because people feared it was causing the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The video reached a wider audience on April 1, when actor Woody Harrelson shared it on Instagram: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Woody Harrelson (@woodyharrelson) on Apr 1, 2020 at 11:13am PDT The video does document a real incident in China, however, it was not filmed in 2020 and has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic or 5G (fifth-generation wireless network) towers. As the new coronavirus spread around the globe in 2020, a conspiracy theory holding that it was human-made started to take hold in certain communities. We've examined this claim at length and found no evidence to support it. (Read more about the origins and scientific failings of the 'bioweapon' conspiracy theory here.) An offshoot of this theory claimed that the coronavirus had actually been caused by 5G cellular towers. 5G was already a 'boogeyman' in the conspiracy theory community. We've previously addressed a claim that cell tower workers were required to wear hazmat suits while working on 5G equipment (false); another held that Japan was banning the development of 5G over health concerns (false, they are actually investing more in the technology.) In this case, the main piece of 'evidence' supporting the claim that 5G towers caused COVID-19 is that China started to install 5G towers around the same time that the coronavirus started to spread in the country (around November 2019). While this is true, the mere fact that two things occurred at around the same time doesn't mean they're related (correlation doesn't imply causation). Although China did start unrolling 5G cell service around the same time that the virus started to spread, this was not the first time that 5G towers were in operation. In fact, 5G networks were in operation in the United States as early as July 2019. South Korea and Germany both had 5G towers installed as early as April 2019. So ask yourself: If 5G towers really caused COVID-19, why weren't cases of the disease reported much earlier in countries such as the United States, South Korea, or Germany? Furthermore, we already know a lot about the true origins of this strain of coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and now with this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir. As for the video displayed above, the footage comes from August 2019 (before the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China) and shows anti-surveillance protesters tearing down a 'smart' lamppost in Hong Kong. Here's the original video from the Guardian: The Guardian reported: Activists targeted several 'smart' lamp-posts equipped with sensors, cameras and data networks in anti-surveillance protests over the weekend. Protesters, many of whom disguised their identities with masks and umbrellas, fear the devices can be used by China to collect personal information. Authorities insist the lamp-posts only collect air quality, traffic and weather data. In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | In short, this video does not show people in China tearing down a 5G tower in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. It shows protesters in Hong Kong in August 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) tearing down a surveillance tower. | [] |
There are no TV commercials for COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. because they would be required to list the vaccines' side effects. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In mid-to-late October 2021, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on social media that contained the misleading claim that there aren't any commercials for COVID-19 vaccines on television because 'by law they have to list the side effects. Fact Check That!' The meme is misleading. We will explain why below. For context, we note that only two countries allow pharmaceutical companies to market their drugs directly to the public, the U.S. and New Zealand. In the U.S., TV viewers are accustomed to seeing prescription drugs hawked to them during commercial breaks, and those ads often contain a long, eyebrow-raising list of side effects. The phenomenon is so commonplace that it's a regular subject of parody. The meme above exploits the fact that none of the three COVID-19 vaccines in use in the U.S. have had that type of commercial campaign. But that's not because the companies that produce the vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, would have to list their side effects. The meme has been circulating on social media since at least July 2021. At that time, none of the vaccines were fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. All three were approved under an emergency use authorization (EUA). Drugs authorized under an EUA have different requirements than those approved by the FDA for advertising. For example, a letter sent to Johnson & Johnson from the FDA in June 2021, outlines that if pharmaceutical companies choose to promote a drug that is in use under an EUA, they must disclose that the product has not been approved by the FDA. Of the three, the FDA has granted Pfizer full approval on Aug. 23, 2021, enabling Pfizer to market the shot under the brand name Comirnaty and freeing the company from the above constraints. As the business-oriented news publication Quartz reported in September 2021, now that Pfizer has FDA approval for its vaccine, the company is ramping up an advertising campaign. Quartz reported that Pfizer has hired the ad agency Ogilvy, and the Financial Times reported the company has been hiring up a new salesforce to promote Comirnaty as well: 'The fresh job adverts highlight how Pfizer is preparing for the next phase of the pandemic, which will involve marketing its annual booster shots in order to compete with other drugmakers including Moderna to become the booster vaccine of choice.' In a statement emailed to Snopes, a spokesperson for Pfizer said an advertising campaign for the the vaccine is in the works: 'We cannot share our specific plans at this time. But, we plan to take a thoughtful approach to marketing and advertising COMIRNATY to the public during this time, with the goal of increasing confidence in vaccination as we continue to combat the deadly COVID-19 pandemic.' In terms of whether drug makers are required to list the side effects of their products in TV spots, that's not necessarily true. According to the FDA, drug companies have to provide, 'Either all the risks listed in the drug's prescribing information or a variety of sources for viewers to find the prescribing information for the drug.' So they can either list the side effects, or tell viewers where they can find such information. That said, none of the three companies that have produced the COVID-19 vaccines in use in the U.S. have hidden the vaccine side effects. All the side effects for the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson shots are listed on the CDC's website, for example. In summary, there is no evidence to support the claim that pharmaceutical companies haven't marketed the COVID-19 vaccines directly to Americans because they would have to list the side effects. Instead, the drug makers have been constrained by regulatory limitations associated with the vaccines being rolled out using EUAs. That said, billions of dollars are being spent by the U.S. government and philanthropic organizations on boosting public education and confidence about the vaccines and encouraging people to get vaccinated. Now that Pfizer's Comirnaty is approved by the FDA, Pfizer's own statements and news reports indicate that the company is, as of this writing, preparing an ad campaign. The side effects of the vaccines, furthermore, have been readily available to the American public since the rollout of the vaccines. We would note that the side effects for Pfizer's shot could be described as tame, compared to the side effects listed in ads for other pharmaceuticals. | In summary, there is no evidence to support the claim that pharmaceutical companies haven't marketed the COVID-19 vaccines directly to Americans because they would have to list the side effects. Instead, the drug makers have been constrained by regulatory limitations associated with the vaccines being rolled out using EUAs. That said, billions of dollars are being spent by the U.S. government and philanthropic organizations on boosting public education and confidence about the vaccines and encouraging people to get vaccinated. Now that Pfizer's Comirnaty is approved by the FDA, Pfizer's own statements and news reports indicate that the company is, as of this writing, preparing an ad campaign. The side effects of the vaccines, furthermore, have been readily available to the American public since the rollout of the vaccines. We would note that the side effects for Pfizer's shot could be described as tame, compared to the side effects listed in ads for other pharmaceuticals. | [
"10935-proof-01-Copy-of-square-1.jpg",
"10935-proof-04-GettyImages-1303457428.jpg"
] |
Eric Trump tweeted about the airstrike that killed Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani in early 2020 before the military operation took place. | Contradiction | One controversy that followed the killing of Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani (variant spellings of the name may appear in reporting by other news organizations) by a U.S. drone strike on Jan. 2, 2020, dealt with who knew, or didn't know, about the military's plan before the attack. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, said that she was not informed of President Donald Trump's intention to launch a drone strike, and that the attack was carried out without an 'authorization for use of military force' from Congress. On social media, a screenshot of a tweet supposedly sent by Trump's son Eric was widely shared, along with the claim that he knew about the attack before it took place: This is a genuine tweet from Eric Trump's account. However, nothing indicates this message was about the United States' plan to kill Soleimani. A few days before the general was killed, a U.S. embassy in Iraq was at the center of a violent demonstration. According to the BBC, crowds surrounded the embassy, smashed windows, overturned vehicles, and set fires to various buildings. On Dec. 31, 2019, the day Eric Trump posted the tweet, marines were deployed to secure the U.S. embassy. Conservative pundit and conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec posted a video of the marines' arrival with the caption: 'BREAKING: US Marines arriving to Baghdad embassy.' BREAKING: US Marines arriving to Baghdad embassy pic.twitter.com/nRGUKF7MJc - Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 31, 2019 While it's not entirely clear in the above-displayed screenshot, the Eric Trump tweet was posted in response to Posobiec's video. Jane Lytvynenko, a reporter with Buzzfeed, shared a screenshot that displayed the full tweet: An archived version of this tweet also shows that Eric Trump's account was commenting on Posobiec's video of marines arriving at the U.S. embassy. In sum, the above-displayed tweet does not show that Eric Trump knew about a military attack in the days before it happened. Rather, it shows his account commenting on a military operation that was already underway. The tweet that America was 'bout to open a big ol' can of whoop ass' was in reference to the marines who were arriving at the U.S. embassy in Iraq on Dec. 31, 2019. Nothing indicates that this tweet was referencing a drone strike that would occur two days later. | In sum, the above-displayed tweet does not show that Eric Trump knew about a military attack in the days before it happened. Rather, it shows his account commenting on a military operation that was already underway. The tweet that America was 'bout to open a big ol' can of whoop ass' was in reference to the marines who were arriving at the U.S. embassy in Iraq on Dec. 31, 2019. Nothing indicates that this tweet was referencing a drone strike that would occur two days later. | [
"11086-proof-11-GettyImages-1187182357-e1578088500716.jpg"
] |
Jacques Attali, a former adviser to French President François Mitterrand, supported a pandemic-driven mass killing in his 1981 book 'Verbatim. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In May 2021, many English-language social media users encountered a quote ostensibly written by Jacques Attali, a French economist who served as a counselor to President François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1991, in which he supported the mass killings of the 'old' and 'stupid' via a global pandemic: This quote, which seems to suggest that a human-made pandemic would kill old people while a nefarious vaccination would kill stupid people, was not written by Attali. This quote (reproduced below) does not appear anywhere in Attali's memoir 'Verbatim,' which reproduces various conversations between Mitterrand and other world leaders. In fact, we found no mention of a pandemic in this book. The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population ... of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good... we will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn't matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself. They will go to the slaughterhouse alone. This is not the first time Attali has been accused of supporting euthanasia, and it is not the first time that a false, misleading, or misattributed quote has been offered as evidence for this accusation. CheckNews, the fact-checking arm of the French newspaper Liberation, wrote about a similar fake quote that was circulated in 2017. That fake quote supposedly came from an interview published by journalist Michel Salomon in his 1981 book 'l'Avenir de La Vie' or 'The Future of Life.' In that case, the viral Facebook text included a few brief sentences from Attali's interview, but the majority of the passage (including the parts about a pandemic) were fabricated. Check News wrote: This call for the reduction of the world population is apocryphal. Only two sentences are authentic and indeed emanate from Jacques Attali: the one on the cost of the sixty-year-olds to the society cited above ['But as soon as we pass 60/65 years, man lives longer than he produces and then costs society more'], and another according to which 'it is much better that the human machine stops suddenly rather than deteriorating. gradually'. They appear in a 1981 interview book, l'Avenir de la vie (Seghers editions) in which Jacques Attali is interviewed by journalist Michel Salomon. However, the economist does not plead for generalized euthanasia. Rather, he speaks out against an infinite lengthening of the life, after having exposed some thoughts on the interest of the leaders and the companies in that people live long, according to their state of health. The AFP also examined this quote in an article published in May 2021. The AFP noted that Attali was asked during his interview with Salomon about whether it would be 'possible and desirable to live 120 years.' Attali gave a lengthy answer to the question and while he concluded that euthanasia may be a tool of future societies, he does not advocate for the killing of the elderly. In fact, in 1984 Attali won a defamation case against a medical journal that accused him of supporting euthanasia for the elderly. Attali told the AFP that the viral FB posts are 'totally made up' and 'nowhere close to the initial text.' In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people. Misleading, out-of-context, and fabricated quotes related to this issue have been misattributed to Attali since the 1980s. In 2021, a modern twist was added to these misleading euthanasia quotes as social media users inserted language related to a pandemic. | In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people. Misleading, out-of-context, and fabricated quotes related to this issue have been misattributed to Attali since the 1980s. In 2021, a modern twist was added to these misleading euthanasia quotes as social media users inserted language related to a pandemic. | [
"11290-proof-04-attalli-quote-false.jpg",
"11290-proof-11-false-quote.jpg"
] |
Jacques Attali, a former adviser to French President François Mitterrand, supported a pandemic-driven mass killing in his 1981 book 'Verbatim. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In May 2021, many English-language social media users encountered a quote ostensibly written by Jacques Attali, a French economist who served as a counselor to President François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1991, in which he supported the mass killings of the 'old' and 'stupid' via a global pandemic: This quote, which seems to suggest that a human-made pandemic would kill old people while a nefarious vaccination would kill stupid people, was not written by Attali. This quote (reproduced below) does not appear anywhere in Attali's memoir 'Verbatim,' which reproduces various conversations between Mitterrand and other world leaders. In fact, we found no mention of a pandemic in this book. The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population ... of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good... we will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn't matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself. They will go to the slaughterhouse alone. This is not the first time Attali has been accused of supporting euthanasia, and it is not the first time that a false, misleading, or misattributed quote has been offered as evidence for this accusation. CheckNews, the fact-checking arm of the French newspaper Liberation, wrote about a similar fake quote that was circulated in 2017. That fake quote supposedly came from an interview published by journalist Michel Salomon in his 1981 book 'l'Avenir de La Vie' or 'The Future of Life.' In that case, the viral Facebook text included a few brief sentences from Attali's interview, but the majority of the passage (including the parts about a pandemic) were fabricated. Check News wrote: This call for the reduction of the world population is apocryphal. Only two sentences are authentic and indeed emanate from Jacques Attali: the one on the cost of the sixty-year-olds to the society cited above ['But as soon as we pass 60/65 years, man lives longer than he produces and then costs society more'], and another according to which 'it is much better that the human machine stops suddenly rather than deteriorating. gradually'. They appear in a 1981 interview book, l'Avenir de la vie (Seghers editions) in which Jacques Attali is interviewed by journalist Michel Salomon. However, the economist does not plead for generalized euthanasia. Rather, he speaks out against an infinite lengthening of the life, after having exposed some thoughts on the interest of the leaders and the companies in that people live long, according to their state of health. The AFP also examined this quote in an article published in May 2021. The AFP noted that Attali was asked during his interview with Salomon about whether it would be 'possible and desirable to live 120 years.' Attali gave a lengthy answer to the question and while he concluded that euthanasia may be a tool of future societies, he does not advocate for the killing of the elderly. In fact, in 1984 Attali won a defamation case against a medical journal that accused him of supporting euthanasia for the elderly. Attali told the AFP that the viral FB posts are 'totally made up' and 'nowhere close to the initial text.' In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people. Misleading, out-of-context, and fabricated quotes related to this issue have been misattributed to Attali since the 1980s. In 2021, a modern twist was added to these misleading euthanasia quotes as social media users inserted language related to a pandemic. | In summation: Attali has spoken about the possibility of euthanasia becoming a tool for future societies, but he has not advocated the mass killing of elderly people. Misleading, out-of-context, and fabricated quotes related to this issue have been misattributed to Attali since the 1980s. In 2021, a modern twist was added to these misleading euthanasia quotes as social media users inserted language related to a pandemic. | [
"11290-proof-04-attalli-quote-false.jpg",
"11290-proof-11-false-quote.jpg"
] |
Facebook said that a message posted by the user 'Adam Butsch' calling for the genocide of white people didn't violate its community standards. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. A meme supposedly showing a Facebook post by a user named 'Adam Butsch' calling for the genocide of white people - and Facebook's response that this message didn't violate their community standards - has been circulating in conservative circles since at least May 2020: This meme is frequently shared along with the accusations that Facebook will take swift action against any racist post against Black people, but they will ignore racist posts against white people. Here are a few of the messages that accompanied this meme as it spread on social media: FB is out of its fucking mind if this does not violate hate and promote violence. Maybe white privilege is that whites are the only race that can be openly discriminated against and it's okay. Replace 'white' with 'black' and there would be a nationwide uproar. Such a double standard. Post let's hang all blacks and see how fast shit gets banned Although we've encountered dozens of postings of this image, we've yet to come across any postings that included a link back to the original post. We were also unable to find this message or 'Adam Butsch' on Facebook. It's possible that this message was deleted, but the fact that it is not currently on the social media site runs counter to the claim that Facebook is allowing this message to spread. We reached out to Facebook for more information about this alleged post, as well as the platform's alleged determination that it did not violate the company's community standards. A spokesperson told us that they were unaware of any such posting by a person of this name. The spokesperson also said that they found no indication that a Facebook representative posted a response to this message saying that it didn't violate their community standards. Furthermore, the content of this message is in clear violation of Facebook's hate speech policy, the spokesperson told us, and if the social media network encountered this post on their site, employees would remove it. Facebook writes on its website: Our Community Standards apply to everyone, all around the world, and to all types of content. They're designed to be comprehensive - for example, content that might not be considered hateful may still be removed for violating a different policy. We recognize that words mean different things or affect people differently depending on their local community, language, or background. We work hard to account for these nuances while also applying our policies consistently and fairly to people and their expression. In the case of certain policies, we require more information and/or context to enforce in line with our Community Standards. It should also be noted that this meme does not feature a singular screenshot. This is a combination of two separate (and not necessarily related) images. We've also been unable to find any higher resolution versions of this image. As this is a low quality screenshot, it's difficult to tell if any of the text in this message (most importantly the 'Adam Butsch' in the message allegedly sent by Facebook) has been altered. In short, we have not found any proof that this posting from 'Adam Butsch' was ever posted to Facebook. If it was, it has since been deleted. A spokesperson for Facebook also told us that this message would have violated its hate speech policy if it was truly posted to Facebook, and that the social network would have removed it employees ever encountered it. | In short, we have not found any proof that this posting from 'Adam Butsch' was ever posted to Facebook. If it was, it has since been deleted. A spokesperson for Facebook also told us that this message would have violated its hate speech policy if it was truly posted to Facebook, and that the social network would have removed it employees ever encountered it. | [] |
Facebook said that a message posted by the user 'Adam Butsch' calling for the genocide of white people didn't violate its community standards. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. A meme supposedly showing a Facebook post by a user named 'Adam Butsch' calling for the genocide of white people - and Facebook's response that this message didn't violate their community standards - has been circulating in conservative circles since at least May 2020: This meme is frequently shared along with the accusations that Facebook will take swift action against any racist post against Black people, but they will ignore racist posts against white people. Here are a few of the messages that accompanied this meme as it spread on social media: FB is out of its fucking mind if this does not violate hate and promote violence. Maybe white privilege is that whites are the only race that can be openly discriminated against and it's okay. Replace 'white' with 'black' and there would be a nationwide uproar. Such a double standard. Post let's hang all blacks and see how fast shit gets banned Although we've encountered dozens of postings of this image, we've yet to come across any postings that included a link back to the original post. We were also unable to find this message or 'Adam Butsch' on Facebook. It's possible that this message was deleted, but the fact that it is not currently on the social media site runs counter to the claim that Facebook is allowing this message to spread. We reached out to Facebook for more information about this alleged post, as well as the platform's alleged determination that it did not violate the company's community standards. A spokesperson told us that they were unaware of any such posting by a person of this name. The spokesperson also said that they found no indication that a Facebook representative posted a response to this message saying that it didn't violate their community standards. Furthermore, the content of this message is in clear violation of Facebook's hate speech policy, the spokesperson told us, and if the social media network encountered this post on their site, employees would remove it. Facebook writes on its website: Our Community Standards apply to everyone, all around the world, and to all types of content. They're designed to be comprehensive - for example, content that might not be considered hateful may still be removed for violating a different policy. We recognize that words mean different things or affect people differently depending on their local community, language, or background. We work hard to account for these nuances while also applying our policies consistently and fairly to people and their expression. In the case of certain policies, we require more information and/or context to enforce in line with our Community Standards. It should also be noted that this meme does not feature a singular screenshot. This is a combination of two separate (and not necessarily related) images. We've also been unable to find any higher resolution versions of this image. As this is a low quality screenshot, it's difficult to tell if any of the text in this message (most importantly the 'Adam Butsch' in the message allegedly sent by Facebook) has been altered. In short, we have not found any proof that this posting from 'Adam Butsch' was ever posted to Facebook. If it was, it has since been deleted. A spokesperson for Facebook also told us that this message would have violated its hate speech policy if it was truly posted to Facebook, and that the social network would have removed it employees ever encountered it. | In short, we have not found any proof that this posting from 'Adam Butsch' was ever posted to Facebook. If it was, it has since been deleted. A spokesperson for Facebook also told us that this message would have violated its hate speech policy if it was truly posted to Facebook, and that the social network would have removed it employees ever encountered it. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested for concealing funding from a Chinese lab connected to the origin of the new coronavirus. | Contradiction | On Jan. 28, 2020, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested and charged with making a materially false statement to federal authorities about receiving funding from China. Lieber's arrest was big news in academic circles; but after internet users noticed that the alleged funding was coming from a university in Wuhan, China, the center of an outbreak of a new coronavirus, wild speculation went viral and unfounded connections were drawn between Lieber and a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was a lab-made bioweapon. A viral Facebook post took it further, relaying more details about Lieber's arrest and making use of some conveniently placed scare quotes: In case you missed it, today, Federal Agents arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, with lying to the Department of Defense about secret monthly payments of $50,000.00 paid by China and receipt of millions more to help set up a chemical/biological 'Research' laboratory in China. Also arrested were two Chinese 'Students' working as research assistants, one of whom was actually a lieutenant in the Chinese Army, the other captured at Logan Airport as he tried to catch a flight to China - smuggling 21 vials of 'Sensitive Biological Samples' according to the FBI. Oh, almost forgot. The research lab the good professor had helped set up? It's located at the Wuhan University of Technology. Wuhan China is ground zero to the potentially global pandemic known as the 'Coronavirus'which is both spreading rapidly and killing people. This is Stephen Coonts international spy novel stuff happening in real life - and it has barely made the news. The claims made in this Facebook post are generally true. Lieber was truly arrested in January 2020 for lying to federal agents about funding he had allegedly received from China. However, Lieber's arrest was not connected to the coronavirus and there's no evidence to support claims that this disease was a human-made bioweapon. Let's take a closer look and separate the facts from the rumors in this case. Why was Charles Lieber arrested? In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | In short: Lieber was arrested for lying to authorities about his involvement with a Chinese government program to recruit and cultivate scientific talent. Lieber was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group. Because this group had received grant funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD), Lieber was required to disclose any funding he received from foreign governments or entities that could lead to a conflict of interest. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges in its complaint that Lieber became a 'strategic scientist' at Wuhan University in 2011 and that he was a contractual participant in China's Thousand Talents Plan, a government program aimed at recruiting and cultivating high-level scientific talent. The DOJ says that Lieber was arrested for lying to investigators about his involvement in this program and his affiliations with WUT: China's Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China's scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber's three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT 'not less than nine months a year' by 'declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of' WUT. The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he 'wasn't sure' how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China's Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber 'had no formal association with WUT' after 2012, that 'WUT continued to falsely exaggerate' his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber 'is not and has never been a participant in' China's Thousand Talents Plan. Were two students arrested, one of whom was a lieutenant in the Chinese army, with 21 vials of 'sensitive biological samples?' In short: The DOJ announced three separate arrests in January 2020. The first was Lieber. The second involved Yanqing Ye, a lieutenant in the Chinese army accused of stealing U.S. research. And third was Zaosong Zheng, who stole 21 vials of biological research. While these three arrests all involve people lying about their ties to China, they took place at different universities and are not related. On Jan. 28, 2020, the DOJ announced the arrests of three different individuals in three separate cases related to China. Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston's Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019. Yanqinq Ye, a lieutenant of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People's Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), reportedly lied about being a 'student' on her visa in order to attend Boston University. The DOJ alleges that Ye conducted research and assessed military websites while studying at BU's Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering and sent U.S. documents and information to China. Zaosong Zheng was arrested at Logan Airport as he was attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research that he allegedly stole from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. What was in the 21 vials? In short: Cancer cells. As news of Zheng's arrest circulated on social media, some made the unfounded claim that these vials of 'biological research' were somehow connected to the coronavirus. According to The New York Times, however, these vials contained cancer cells: Inside his checked luggage, wrapped in a plastic bag and then inserted into a sock, the officers found what they were looking for: 21 vials of brown liquid - cancer cells - that the authorities say Mr. Zheng, 29, a cancer researcher, took from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. While some conspiracy theorists assumed that Zheng's plan involved a bio-weapon, Zheng told authorities that he planned on using the samples to further his career: Under questioning, court documents say, Mr. Zheng acknowledged that he had stolen eight of the samples and had replicated 11 more based on a colleague's research. When he returned to China, he said, he would take the samples to Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital and turbocharge his career by publishing the results in China, under his own name. Is coronavirus a man-made bio-weapon? In short: There is no evidence that coronavirus was human-made and several leading researchers have debunked this notion. While this conspiracy theory has started to receive some mainstream attention (it was even pushed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton), there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, several researchers have debunked this claim, calling it illogical and noting that the current evidence indicates that the coronavirus mutated naturally. Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle stated at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Seattle that 'There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find. The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution.' Two more researchers gave statements to The Washington Post: 'There's absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered,' said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. 'The possibility this was a deliberately released bioweapon can be firmly excluded.' Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is 'highly unlikely' the general population was exposed to a virus through an accident at a lab. 'We don't have any evidence for that,' said Narang, a political science professor with a background in chemical engineering. 'It's a skip in logic to say it's a bioweapon that the Chinese developed and intentionally deployed, or even unintentionally deployed,' Narang said Was Charles Lieber's arrest related to the coronavirus? In short: No. Lieber's arrest (as well as the two other cases) was related to economic and academic espionage. There's no indication that Lieber's research, arrest, or connection to China was related to the spread of the coronavirus. Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for allegedly working with a university in China to further the country's recruitment and development of scientific talent. While Lieber was reportedly working with a lab in Wuhan, China (it should be noted that Lieber allegedly started working with the Wuhan University of Technology 9 years before there would be an outbreak of coronavirus in the area), there's no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than a coincidence. Lieber's arrest, as well as the two other cases brought by the DOJ in January 2020, dealt with an academic battle between the U.S. and China. Lieber was allegedly working with a Chinese recruitment program, Ye was allegedly attempting to steal United States research and documents, and Zheng's was attempting to steal biological samples. FBI Boston Division Special Agent in Charge Joseph R. Bonavolonta said in a statement that all three of these cases dealt with 'economic espionage' and China's attempts to steal trade secrets: China's goal, simply put, is to replace the United States as the world's leading superpower, and they're breaking the law to get there. Massachusetts is a target-rich environment with world-class academic institutions, research facilities, hospitals, cleared defense contractors, and start-ups. And each and every one of them are in danger of having their research, development, and investments stolen right out from under them. The ruling Communist Party of the PRC wants what we have so they can get the upper hand on us. And while we are still confronted with traditional spies seeking our state secrets, often working under diplomatic cover, or posing as everyday citizens, I can tell you China is also using what we call 'non-traditional collectors' such as professors, researchers, hackers and front companies. All three individuals charged today are manifestations of the China threat ... Make no mistake, the ruling Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is highly strategic in their approach, and we are deeply concerned about American innovation, research, and cutting-edge technologies ending up in the wrong hands ... Economic espionage and the theft of trade secrets significantly hurts our academic institutions, businesses, jobs, and consumers, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses every year. While some may find these arrests to be suspect, the Department of Justice made no mention of coronavirus or biological warfare in their complaints. | [] |
A former first lady wore a dress estimated to be worth $46,000 to an inaugural ball. | Contradiction | The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris was a day unlike any the United States had seen before. Safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent attack on the Capitol led to a number of changes for the Inauguration Day schedule. For example, the inaugural ball was canceled. Past inaugural balls included a first dance for the president and first lady, and that a special wardrobe is traditionally chosen by each first lady. According to an online advertisement, one first lady purportedly spent an estimated $46,000 on one dress: The ad featured pictures of Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. Readers who clicked the ad were led through 55 pages of pictures and details in a lengthy slideshow story with the headline: 'First Ladies' Fashion Over The Years.' Some first ladies were featured on multiple pages. Nancy Reagan was one of those women: After [Ronald] Reagan was elected for a second term, Nancy wore the designer Galanos and the gown was again white, only this time it was outfitted with long sleeves. Allegedly, the designer and staff spent over three hundred hours hand placing beads onto the gown. The gown cost an estimated $46,000! It was true that, in 1985, the first lady wore a wardrobe to Ronald Reagan's second inauguration that would total, at retail, for $46,000. However, it was misleading to claim that Nancy Reagan's inaugural ball dress alone cost $46,000. Further, Nancy Reagan's dress featured in the advertisement picture was from 1981, not 1985. The Washington Post reported in 1985 that 'the actual price paid by Mrs. Reagan is a private matter, adjusted by the designers because of the exposure given their designs when she wears them.' However, the Post looked to industry sources and confirmed that 'the costs, at retail, for the clothes Mrs. Reagan plans to wear to the major inaugural festivities, excluding some accessories, would be $46,000.' The Reagan White House declined to comment to the Post about the amount paid for the first lady's inaugural ball dress and other products. However, the Post's reporting included a breakdown of what it would have cost to purchase Nancy Reagan's dress and other accessories at retail: A totally beaded gown with Art Deco design and bolero effect by James Galanos, $22,500. The Austrian and Czechoslovakian glass beads, took more than 300 hours to apply by hand, the designer said last week. Nancy and Ronald Reagan at Second Inaugural Ball (Photo by Corbis via Getty Images) An electric blue matching coat and dress, each with a chain link belt, by Adolfo, $2,800. The designer has also made a roller-brimmed hat in the same blue to wear with the costume. (The designer is lending Mrs. Reagan link earrings and necklace to wear as well.) Jan. 21, 1985: Ronald and Nancy Reagan with George and Barbara Bush at the public inauguration of President Reagan and Vice President George Bush at the Capitol Rotunda for their second terms in office. A lacquer-red, heavy silk side-draped gown by Bill Blass to be worn to the gala, $3,000. The gown is similar to a dress Blass is offering his customers for spring. Jan. 19, 1985: President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Inaugural Gala held at the DC Convention Center. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) In addition, Mrs. Reagan has also ordered a white double-faced wool coat with three jeweled buttons that close off to the side to wear over the white gown, $6,000; and a white mink blouson jacket, also a Galanos design, $10,500. A red wool jersey wrap, made especially to go over the red dress worn to the gala, $1,000. A twisted pearl chocker and earrings by Kenneth Jay Lane to wear with the red dress $200. (Actually, the designer made two necklaces to give Mrs. Reagan a choice.) This $46,000 total does not include specially handmade shoes or other accessories to complete each outfit. In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11376-proof-03-GettyImages-515323174-scaled-e1611276887270.jpg",
"11376-proof-05-GettyImages-615295746-scaled-e1611277383733.jpg",
"11376-proof-14-GettyImages-526979116-scaled-e1611277152458.jpg"
] |
A former first lady wore a dress estimated to be worth $46,000 to an inaugural ball. | Contradiction | The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris was a day unlike any the United States had seen before. Safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent attack on the Capitol led to a number of changes for the Inauguration Day schedule. For example, the inaugural ball was canceled. Past inaugural balls included a first dance for the president and first lady, and that a special wardrobe is traditionally chosen by each first lady. According to an online advertisement, one first lady purportedly spent an estimated $46,000 on one dress: The ad featured pictures of Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. Readers who clicked the ad were led through 55 pages of pictures and details in a lengthy slideshow story with the headline: 'First Ladies' Fashion Over The Years.' Some first ladies were featured on multiple pages. Nancy Reagan was one of those women: After [Ronald] Reagan was elected for a second term, Nancy wore the designer Galanos and the gown was again white, only this time it was outfitted with long sleeves. Allegedly, the designer and staff spent over three hundred hours hand placing beads onto the gown. The gown cost an estimated $46,000! It was true that, in 1985, the first lady wore a wardrobe to Ronald Reagan's second inauguration that would total, at retail, for $46,000. However, it was misleading to claim that Nancy Reagan's inaugural ball dress alone cost $46,000. Further, Nancy Reagan's dress featured in the advertisement picture was from 1981, not 1985. The Washington Post reported in 1985 that 'the actual price paid by Mrs. Reagan is a private matter, adjusted by the designers because of the exposure given their designs when she wears them.' However, the Post looked to industry sources and confirmed that 'the costs, at retail, for the clothes Mrs. Reagan plans to wear to the major inaugural festivities, excluding some accessories, would be $46,000.' The Reagan White House declined to comment to the Post about the amount paid for the first lady's inaugural ball dress and other products. However, the Post's reporting included a breakdown of what it would have cost to purchase Nancy Reagan's dress and other accessories at retail: A totally beaded gown with Art Deco design and bolero effect by James Galanos, $22,500. The Austrian and Czechoslovakian glass beads, took more than 300 hours to apply by hand, the designer said last week. Nancy and Ronald Reagan at Second Inaugural Ball (Photo by Corbis via Getty Images) An electric blue matching coat and dress, each with a chain link belt, by Adolfo, $2,800. The designer has also made a roller-brimmed hat in the same blue to wear with the costume. (The designer is lending Mrs. Reagan link earrings and necklace to wear as well.) Jan. 21, 1985: Ronald and Nancy Reagan with George and Barbara Bush at the public inauguration of President Reagan and Vice President George Bush at the Capitol Rotunda for their second terms in office. A lacquer-red, heavy silk side-draped gown by Bill Blass to be worn to the gala, $3,000. The gown is similar to a dress Blass is offering his customers for spring. Jan. 19, 1985: President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Inaugural Gala held at the DC Convention Center. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) In addition, Mrs. Reagan has also ordered a white double-faced wool coat with three jeweled buttons that close off to the side to wear over the white gown, $6,000; and a white mink blouson jacket, also a Galanos design, $10,500. A red wool jersey wrap, made especially to go over the red dress worn to the gala, $1,000. A twisted pearl chocker and earrings by Kenneth Jay Lane to wear with the red dress $200. (Actually, the designer made two necklaces to give Mrs. Reagan a choice.) This $46,000 total does not include specially handmade shoes or other accessories to complete each outfit. In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11376-proof-03-GettyImages-515323174-scaled-e1611276887270.jpg",
"11376-proof-05-GettyImages-615295746-scaled-e1611277383733.jpg",
"11376-proof-14-GettyImages-526979116-scaled-e1611277152458.jpg"
] |
A former first lady wore a dress estimated to be worth $46,000 to an inaugural ball. | Contradiction | The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris was a day unlike any the United States had seen before. Safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent attack on the Capitol led to a number of changes for the Inauguration Day schedule. For example, the inaugural ball was canceled. Past inaugural balls included a first dance for the president and first lady, and that a special wardrobe is traditionally chosen by each first lady. According to an online advertisement, one first lady purportedly spent an estimated $46,000 on one dress: The ad featured pictures of Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. Readers who clicked the ad were led through 55 pages of pictures and details in a lengthy slideshow story with the headline: 'First Ladies' Fashion Over The Years.' Some first ladies were featured on multiple pages. Nancy Reagan was one of those women: After [Ronald] Reagan was elected for a second term, Nancy wore the designer Galanos and the gown was again white, only this time it was outfitted with long sleeves. Allegedly, the designer and staff spent over three hundred hours hand placing beads onto the gown. The gown cost an estimated $46,000! It was true that, in 1985, the first lady wore a wardrobe to Ronald Reagan's second inauguration that would total, at retail, for $46,000. However, it was misleading to claim that Nancy Reagan's inaugural ball dress alone cost $46,000. Further, Nancy Reagan's dress featured in the advertisement picture was from 1981, not 1985. The Washington Post reported in 1985 that 'the actual price paid by Mrs. Reagan is a private matter, adjusted by the designers because of the exposure given their designs when she wears them.' However, the Post looked to industry sources and confirmed that 'the costs, at retail, for the clothes Mrs. Reagan plans to wear to the major inaugural festivities, excluding some accessories, would be $46,000.' The Reagan White House declined to comment to the Post about the amount paid for the first lady's inaugural ball dress and other products. However, the Post's reporting included a breakdown of what it would have cost to purchase Nancy Reagan's dress and other accessories at retail: A totally beaded gown with Art Deco design and bolero effect by James Galanos, $22,500. The Austrian and Czechoslovakian glass beads, took more than 300 hours to apply by hand, the designer said last week. Nancy and Ronald Reagan at Second Inaugural Ball (Photo by Corbis via Getty Images) An electric blue matching coat and dress, each with a chain link belt, by Adolfo, $2,800. The designer has also made a roller-brimmed hat in the same blue to wear with the costume. (The designer is lending Mrs. Reagan link earrings and necklace to wear as well.) Jan. 21, 1985: Ronald and Nancy Reagan with George and Barbara Bush at the public inauguration of President Reagan and Vice President George Bush at the Capitol Rotunda for their second terms in office. A lacquer-red, heavy silk side-draped gown by Bill Blass to be worn to the gala, $3,000. The gown is similar to a dress Blass is offering his customers for spring. Jan. 19, 1985: President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Inaugural Gala held at the DC Convention Center. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) In addition, Mrs. Reagan has also ordered a white double-faced wool coat with three jeweled buttons that close off to the side to wear over the white gown, $6,000; and a white mink blouson jacket, also a Galanos design, $10,500. A red wool jersey wrap, made especially to go over the red dress worn to the gala, $1,000. A twisted pearl chocker and earrings by Kenneth Jay Lane to wear with the red dress $200. (Actually, the designer made two necklaces to give Mrs. Reagan a choice.) This $46,000 total does not include specially handmade shoes or other accessories to complete each outfit. In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11376-proof-03-GettyImages-515323174-scaled-e1611276887270.jpg",
"11376-proof-05-GettyImages-615295746-scaled-e1611277383733.jpg",
"11376-proof-14-GettyImages-526979116-scaled-e1611277152458.jpg"
] |
A former first lady wore a dress estimated to be worth $46,000 to an inaugural ball. | Contradiction | The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris was a day unlike any the United States had seen before. Safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent attack on the Capitol led to a number of changes for the Inauguration Day schedule. For example, the inaugural ball was canceled. Past inaugural balls included a first dance for the president and first lady, and that a special wardrobe is traditionally chosen by each first lady. According to an online advertisement, one first lady purportedly spent an estimated $46,000 on one dress: The ad featured pictures of Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. Readers who clicked the ad were led through 55 pages of pictures and details in a lengthy slideshow story with the headline: 'First Ladies' Fashion Over The Years.' Some first ladies were featured on multiple pages. Nancy Reagan was one of those women: After [Ronald] Reagan was elected for a second term, Nancy wore the designer Galanos and the gown was again white, only this time it was outfitted with long sleeves. Allegedly, the designer and staff spent over three hundred hours hand placing beads onto the gown. The gown cost an estimated $46,000! It was true that, in 1985, the first lady wore a wardrobe to Ronald Reagan's second inauguration that would total, at retail, for $46,000. However, it was misleading to claim that Nancy Reagan's inaugural ball dress alone cost $46,000. Further, Nancy Reagan's dress featured in the advertisement picture was from 1981, not 1985. The Washington Post reported in 1985 that 'the actual price paid by Mrs. Reagan is a private matter, adjusted by the designers because of the exposure given their designs when she wears them.' However, the Post looked to industry sources and confirmed that 'the costs, at retail, for the clothes Mrs. Reagan plans to wear to the major inaugural festivities, excluding some accessories, would be $46,000.' The Reagan White House declined to comment to the Post about the amount paid for the first lady's inaugural ball dress and other products. However, the Post's reporting included a breakdown of what it would have cost to purchase Nancy Reagan's dress and other accessories at retail: A totally beaded gown with Art Deco design and bolero effect by James Galanos, $22,500. The Austrian and Czechoslovakian glass beads, took more than 300 hours to apply by hand, the designer said last week. Nancy and Ronald Reagan at Second Inaugural Ball (Photo by Corbis via Getty Images) An electric blue matching coat and dress, each with a chain link belt, by Adolfo, $2,800. The designer has also made a roller-brimmed hat in the same blue to wear with the costume. (The designer is lending Mrs. Reagan link earrings and necklace to wear as well.) Jan. 21, 1985: Ronald and Nancy Reagan with George and Barbara Bush at the public inauguration of President Reagan and Vice President George Bush at the Capitol Rotunda for their second terms in office. A lacquer-red, heavy silk side-draped gown by Bill Blass to be worn to the gala, $3,000. The gown is similar to a dress Blass is offering his customers for spring. Jan. 19, 1985: President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Inaugural Gala held at the DC Convention Center. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) In addition, Mrs. Reagan has also ordered a white double-faced wool coat with three jeweled buttons that close off to the side to wear over the white gown, $6,000; and a white mink blouson jacket, also a Galanos design, $10,500. A red wool jersey wrap, made especially to go over the red dress worn to the gala, $1,000. A twisted pearl chocker and earrings by Kenneth Jay Lane to wear with the red dress $200. (Actually, the designer made two necklaces to give Mrs. Reagan a choice.) This $46,000 total does not include specially handmade shoes or other accessories to complete each outfit. In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11376-proof-03-GettyImages-515323174-scaled-e1611276887270.jpg",
"11376-proof-05-GettyImages-615295746-scaled-e1611277383733.jpg",
"11376-proof-14-GettyImages-526979116-scaled-e1611277152458.jpg"
] |
A former first lady wore a dress estimated to be worth $46,000 to an inaugural ball. | Contradiction | The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris was a day unlike any the United States had seen before. Safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent attack on the Capitol led to a number of changes for the Inauguration Day schedule. For example, the inaugural ball was canceled. Past inaugural balls included a first dance for the president and first lady, and that a special wardrobe is traditionally chosen by each first lady. According to an online advertisement, one first lady purportedly spent an estimated $46,000 on one dress: The ad featured pictures of Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Michelle Obama, and Melania Trump. Readers who clicked the ad were led through 55 pages of pictures and details in a lengthy slideshow story with the headline: 'First Ladies' Fashion Over The Years.' Some first ladies were featured on multiple pages. Nancy Reagan was one of those women: After [Ronald] Reagan was elected for a second term, Nancy wore the designer Galanos and the gown was again white, only this time it was outfitted with long sleeves. Allegedly, the designer and staff spent over three hundred hours hand placing beads onto the gown. The gown cost an estimated $46,000! It was true that, in 1985, the first lady wore a wardrobe to Ronald Reagan's second inauguration that would total, at retail, for $46,000. However, it was misleading to claim that Nancy Reagan's inaugural ball dress alone cost $46,000. Further, Nancy Reagan's dress featured in the advertisement picture was from 1981, not 1985. The Washington Post reported in 1985 that 'the actual price paid by Mrs. Reagan is a private matter, adjusted by the designers because of the exposure given their designs when she wears them.' However, the Post looked to industry sources and confirmed that 'the costs, at retail, for the clothes Mrs. Reagan plans to wear to the major inaugural festivities, excluding some accessories, would be $46,000.' The Reagan White House declined to comment to the Post about the amount paid for the first lady's inaugural ball dress and other products. However, the Post's reporting included a breakdown of what it would have cost to purchase Nancy Reagan's dress and other accessories at retail: A totally beaded gown with Art Deco design and bolero effect by James Galanos, $22,500. The Austrian and Czechoslovakian glass beads, took more than 300 hours to apply by hand, the designer said last week. Nancy and Ronald Reagan at Second Inaugural Ball (Photo by Corbis via Getty Images) An electric blue matching coat and dress, each with a chain link belt, by Adolfo, $2,800. The designer has also made a roller-brimmed hat in the same blue to wear with the costume. (The designer is lending Mrs. Reagan link earrings and necklace to wear as well.) Jan. 21, 1985: Ronald and Nancy Reagan with George and Barbara Bush at the public inauguration of President Reagan and Vice President George Bush at the Capitol Rotunda for their second terms in office. A lacquer-red, heavy silk side-draped gown by Bill Blass to be worn to the gala, $3,000. The gown is similar to a dress Blass is offering his customers for spring. Jan. 19, 1985: President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan at the Inaugural Gala held at the DC Convention Center. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) In addition, Mrs. Reagan has also ordered a white double-faced wool coat with three jeweled buttons that close off to the side to wear over the white gown, $6,000; and a white mink blouson jacket, also a Galanos design, $10,500. A red wool jersey wrap, made especially to go over the red dress worn to the gala, $1,000. A twisted pearl chocker and earrings by Kenneth Jay Lane to wear with the red dress $200. (Actually, the designer made two necklaces to give Mrs. Reagan a choice.) This $46,000 total does not include specially handmade shoes or other accessories to complete each outfit. In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, Nancy Reagan's wardrobe for her husband's second inauguration might have totaled $46,000 at retail, but that was not the price for a single dress or gown. Further, prices may have been reduced for the exposure the first lady brought to the designers. This was far from the first time that women in politics were criticized, perhaps unfairly, for their wardrobe choices. In 2017, Business Insider reported on a $51,500 jacket worn by Melania Trump. Michelle Obama also once purportedly showed off $3,900 boots. In 2016, CNBC.com reported that Hillary Clinton once wore a $12,000 jacket. Or, was it $7,500? Sarah Palin, who was John McCain's running mate in 2008, reportedly spent $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. As with Nancy Reagan's supposed $46,000 wardrobe for dresses, gowns, and accessories, the prices for clothing worn by other women in politics may also have been purchased at reduced prices because of the exposure they brought to designers. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11376-proof-03-GettyImages-515323174-scaled-e1611276887270.jpg",
"11376-proof-05-GettyImages-615295746-scaled-e1611277383733.jpg",
"11376-proof-14-GettyImages-526979116-scaled-e1611277152458.jpg"
] |
A boy and girl hopped off of Space Mountain while the ride was in motion and pretended that one of them died on the track, all as a prank on Disneyland cast members. | Contradiction | Since at least 2020, a false and misleading story has circulated online that described a Disneyland prank involving the popular thrill ride known as Space Mountain. For example, the organization behind this @travelerdoor tweet from July 8 paid Twitter an unknown sum of money to promote it as an ad on the social network: We blurred the child's face after the photograph was used improperly by @travelerdoor. The ad claimed that 'Plenty of Disney employees were happy to give out the juiciest bits of crazy that happened to them or that they have ever seen in the House of Mouse.' The Fake Story Once we clicked the ad we were led to a lengthy slideshow article. The last page of the article described the Space Mountain prank that purportedly took place at Disneyland: Thought The Kids Were Goners! Some kids are just jerks. According to one ride attendant who used to work the Space Mountain before [at Disneyland], he and his co-attendants let a kid who didn't meet the height limit onto the ride because his big sister vowed she'd hold on to him. Unfortunately for them, the kids were planning something messed up. When the ride got back, the two kids were missing. Naturally, everyone lost it. After all, they could lose their job and go to prison. So they quickly shut down the ride and start climbing up and down the ride to look for the kids. When they finally found them, it seems that they're too late. The boy is lying facedown on the tracks, and his sister looks like she's traumatized and grieving. At that point, the attendants started crying, until the girl bursts out laughing, soon followed by the apparently not dead boy. The worst part is that the attendants couldn't report it because they'd lose their job for letting the boy ride in the first place. However, none of this was true. There is no evidence that this ever happened, and the idea presented in the story was quite absurd. It claimed that small children at Disneyland were unaccompanied by parents in a line for a ride, and although one of them didn't meet Space Mountain's height requirement, cast members allowed both of them on the ride anyway. Then the children somehow safely hopped off of the ride in the dark, without injury, and were undetected despite the cameras covering every inch of the track. This does not jive with reality. Misuse of Child Photos In the middle of the Traveler Door article, a photograph showed three young children sitting in front of Disneyland's Sleeping Beauty Castle and was credited to DisneylandWithKids.info. We have chosen to not repost the image here. We reached out to DisneylandWithKids.info and they told us that the three children in the picture belonged to one of the four co-owners of their website, and that they did not authorize its use on the Traveler Door website. One of the site's co-owners spent a decade as an intellectual property attorney and intended to take the necessary steps to have the picture removed. We provided information on where we found the photograph so that they could begin the process of having it taken down. We also advised them about the specific email address to report abuse to the domain name's registrar, which was Namecheap.com. Space Mountain As for Disneyland's Space Mountain, it debuted two days after 'Star Wars' premiered, on May 27, 1977: The queue inside Space Mountain. (Courtesy: Peter Lee/Flickr) Space Mountain is described by Disneyland as a 'Race through the cosmos in the dark to the edge of the galaxy and back on a thrilling roller-coaster ride.' All Systems Go Navigate through a vast futuristic space station as you make your way to Mission Control. Board a sleek flight vehicle and prepare yourself for a high-flying adventure to the furthest reaches of space. Ascend slowly through a swirling solar field as your rocket powers up. Plunge through a spectacular spiral nebula and then, when the countdown ends-hang on tight! As you hurtle forward into infinite darkness, your rocket darts and twists in the void, speeding faster and faster. Feel the g-force as you careen into the unknown! Immersive sound effects and evocative music add to the intense sensory experience. Brave the most epic journey of your Earthbound life and accept your mission-to conquer [Disneyland's] Space Mountain. In sum, there's no evidence from books, Disney blogs, newspapers, or any other source of information confirming the outlandish Disneyland Space Mountain prank story. Further, if past Disney cast members were to actually give out details about bizarre moments from the park, they probably wouldn't be giving them to a simple and clumsy arbitrage website. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, there's no evidence from books, Disney blogs, newspapers, or any other source of information confirming the outlandish Disneyland Space Mountain prank story. Further, if past Disney cast members were to actually give out details about bizarre moments from the park, they probably wouldn't be giving them to a simple and clumsy arbitrage website. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11447-proof-00-space-mountain-tweet-full.jpg",
"11447-proof-05-space-mountain-queue-flickr-e1626134984422.jpg",
"11447-proof-12-space-mountain-night-flickr-e1626134664170.jpg"
] |
A boy and girl hopped off of Space Mountain while the ride was in motion and pretended that one of them died on the track, all as a prank on Disneyland cast members. | Contradiction | Since at least 2020, a false and misleading story has circulated online that described a Disneyland prank involving the popular thrill ride known as Space Mountain. For example, the organization behind this @travelerdoor tweet from July 8 paid Twitter an unknown sum of money to promote it as an ad on the social network: We blurred the child's face after the photograph was used improperly by @travelerdoor. The ad claimed that 'Plenty of Disney employees were happy to give out the juiciest bits of crazy that happened to them or that they have ever seen in the House of Mouse.' The Fake Story Once we clicked the ad we were led to a lengthy slideshow article. The last page of the article described the Space Mountain prank that purportedly took place at Disneyland: Thought The Kids Were Goners! Some kids are just jerks. According to one ride attendant who used to work the Space Mountain before [at Disneyland], he and his co-attendants let a kid who didn't meet the height limit onto the ride because his big sister vowed she'd hold on to him. Unfortunately for them, the kids were planning something messed up. When the ride got back, the two kids were missing. Naturally, everyone lost it. After all, they could lose their job and go to prison. So they quickly shut down the ride and start climbing up and down the ride to look for the kids. When they finally found them, it seems that they're too late. The boy is lying facedown on the tracks, and his sister looks like she's traumatized and grieving. At that point, the attendants started crying, until the girl bursts out laughing, soon followed by the apparently not dead boy. The worst part is that the attendants couldn't report it because they'd lose their job for letting the boy ride in the first place. However, none of this was true. There is no evidence that this ever happened, and the idea presented in the story was quite absurd. It claimed that small children at Disneyland were unaccompanied by parents in a line for a ride, and although one of them didn't meet Space Mountain's height requirement, cast members allowed both of them on the ride anyway. Then the children somehow safely hopped off of the ride in the dark, without injury, and were undetected despite the cameras covering every inch of the track. This does not jive with reality. Misuse of Child Photos In the middle of the Traveler Door article, a photograph showed three young children sitting in front of Disneyland's Sleeping Beauty Castle and was credited to DisneylandWithKids.info. We have chosen to not repost the image here. We reached out to DisneylandWithKids.info and they told us that the three children in the picture belonged to one of the four co-owners of their website, and that they did not authorize its use on the Traveler Door website. One of the site's co-owners spent a decade as an intellectual property attorney and intended to take the necessary steps to have the picture removed. We provided information on where we found the photograph so that they could begin the process of having it taken down. We also advised them about the specific email address to report abuse to the domain name's registrar, which was Namecheap.com. Space Mountain As for Disneyland's Space Mountain, it debuted two days after 'Star Wars' premiered, on May 27, 1977: The queue inside Space Mountain. (Courtesy: Peter Lee/Flickr) Space Mountain is described by Disneyland as a 'Race through the cosmos in the dark to the edge of the galaxy and back on a thrilling roller-coaster ride.' All Systems Go Navigate through a vast futuristic space station as you make your way to Mission Control. Board a sleek flight vehicle and prepare yourself for a high-flying adventure to the furthest reaches of space. Ascend slowly through a swirling solar field as your rocket powers up. Plunge through a spectacular spiral nebula and then, when the countdown ends-hang on tight! As you hurtle forward into infinite darkness, your rocket darts and twists in the void, speeding faster and faster. Feel the g-force as you careen into the unknown! Immersive sound effects and evocative music add to the intense sensory experience. Brave the most epic journey of your Earthbound life and accept your mission-to conquer [Disneyland's] Space Mountain. In sum, there's no evidence from books, Disney blogs, newspapers, or any other source of information confirming the outlandish Disneyland Space Mountain prank story. Further, if past Disney cast members were to actually give out details about bizarre moments from the park, they probably wouldn't be giving them to a simple and clumsy arbitrage website. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, there's no evidence from books, Disney blogs, newspapers, or any other source of information confirming the outlandish Disneyland Space Mountain prank story. Further, if past Disney cast members were to actually give out details about bizarre moments from the park, they probably wouldn't be giving them to a simple and clumsy arbitrage website. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"11447-proof-00-space-mountain-tweet-full.jpg",
"11447-proof-05-space-mountain-queue-flickr-e1626134984422.jpg",
"11447-proof-12-space-mountain-night-flickr-e1626134664170.jpg"
] |
By participating in a Facebook 'secret sister' gift exchange, you'll receive 36 gifts, books, or bottles of wine in exchange for one $10-15 contribution. | Contradiction | In late October 2015, social media users began sending and receiving solicitations to participate in a 'secret sisters' gift exchange scheme. Posts on Facebook, Reddit, and several forums described a process that involved sending one present (commonly valued at $10) and receiving 36 in return. Participants who opted in to the 'secret sister' exchange were instructed to send a gift to the first 'sister' on the list, move the second on the list to the first spot, and put their own name into the second spot. Many of the postings warned naysayers and skeptics that their objections would be deleted from comment threads: Welcome to our secret sister gift exchange! Here's how it works: 1) Send one gift value at least $10 to secret sister #1 below. 2) Remove secret sister's name from #1; then move secret sister #2 to that spot. 3) Add your name to #2 with your info. 4) Then send this info to 6 other ladies with the updated name info 5) Copy the secret sister request that I posted on my wall, to your own wall. If you cannot complete this within 1 week please notify me, as it isn't fair to the ladies who have participated and are waiting for their own gifts to arrive. You might want to order directly from a web-based service (Amazon, or any other online shop) which saves a trip to the post office. Soon you should receive 36 gifts! What a deal, 36 gifts for giving just one! Be sure to include some information about yourself ... some of your favorites. Seldom does anyone drop out because it's so much fun to send a gift to someone you may or may not know ... and of course it's fun to receive. You should begin receiving gifts in about 2 weeks if you get your letters out to your 6 people right away. The majority of 'secret sister' gift exchange solicitations that arrived in our inbox definitively promised 36 randomly selected $10 gifts for each 'sister,' a number that seemed to hinge on static participation levels for every individual group exchange. As a telling number of social media commenters pointed out, the idea was simply a repackaging of age-old chain letter gifting schemes, the pitfalls of which are both well-known and about as ubiquitous as the practice itself. It's worth noting that amid the myriad enticements for such initiatives on social media, many users expressed interest and committed to the exchanges. But while a handful of individuals claimed to have received a single gift, none reported an avalanche of $10 trinkets arriving at their doors. Had such a plan ever borne fruit, accounts of such success mysteriously remained virtually non-existent. However, the plausibility of actually garnering returns was secondary to a far bigger problem with the 'secret sister' scheme. According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, gift chains aren't just 'mathematically impossible'; they're also illegal: There's at least one problem with chain letters. They're illegal if they request money or other items of value and promise a substantial return to the participants. Chain letters are a form of gambling, and sending them through the mail (or delivering them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate) violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, the Postal Lottery Statute. (Chain letters that ask for items of minor value, like picture postcards or recipes, may be mailed, since such items are not things of value within the meaning of the law.) A common objection raised by prospective participants addressed the motivations for participating in the exchange; those users held that whether the scheme worked or not, the initial $10 outlay seemed a minor risk (which served to altruistically served to bring joy to others). However, that interpretation neglected to consider those solicited (by any single user's participation) stood to lose out, thereby rendering individual intent (to give or receive) largely irrelevant. In short, the problem wasn't whether any one person expected to receive presents back - it was the inherently unfulfillable promise that a $10 buy in would result in hundreds of dollars worth of returns for others. Whether or not user participated 'honestly,' they had no hand in ensuring that those who bought in under them would receive any return on their initial investments, and the risk in question was problematic precisely because it was undertaken on behalf of others. In December 2016, the 'Secret Sister' trend revisited social media as a 'wine exchange' (with the same problematic status): ATTENTION WINE DRINKERS! Let's create some positivity over the next few weeks leading up to the holidays ... Anyone interested in a holiday wine bottle exchange? It doesn't matter where you live, you are welcome to join. I need a minimum of 6 (or preferably up to 36) wine lovers to participate in a secret wine bottle exchange. You only have to buy ONE bottle of wine valued at $15 or more and send it to ONE secret wine lover. (You can even send it through Amazon!) Afterwards, you will receive from 6 to 36 wine bottles in return!! It all depends how many wine drinkers join. Let me know if you are interested and I will send you the information! Please don't ask to participate if you're not going to follow through with sending one wine bottle. TIS THE SEASON! Comment below if you're in & I'll send you the details via fb messenger - if they are confusing at all, please let me know!! Participating in 'secret sister' gift exchanges is a prospect dubious for many reasons (primarily legal ones). Reddit's popular Secret Santa gift exchange presents an option for those who wish to exchange holiday presents with strangers, but it involves sending and receiving a single gift (not 36).Recent Updates Updated video with news clips from the 2018 holiday season. | In short, the problem wasn't whether any one person expected to receive presents back - it was the inherently unfulfillable promise that a $10 buy in would result in hundreds of dollars worth of returns for others. Whether or not user participated 'honestly,' they had no hand in ensuring that those who bought in under them would receive any return on their initial investments, and the risk in question was problematic precisely because it was undertaken on behalf of others. In December 2016, the 'Secret Sister' trend revisited social media as a 'wine exchange' (with the same problematic status): ATTENTION WINE DRINKERS! Let's create some positivity over the next few weeks leading up to the holidays ... Anyone interested in a holiday wine bottle exchange? It doesn't matter where you live, you are welcome to join. I need a minimum of 6 (or preferably up to 36) wine lovers to participate in a secret wine bottle exchange. You only have to buy ONE bottle of wine valued at $15 or more and send it to ONE secret wine lover. (You can even send it through Amazon!) Afterwards, you will receive from 6 to 36 wine bottles in return!! It all depends how many wine drinkers join. Let me know if you are interested and I will send you the information! Please don't ask to participate if you're not going to follow through with sending one wine bottle. TIS THE SEASON! Comment below if you're in & I'll send you the details via fb messenger - if they are confusing at all, please let me know!! Participating in 'secret sister' gift exchanges is a prospect dubious for many reasons (primarily legal ones). Reddit's popular Secret Santa gift exchange presents an option for those who wish to exchange holiday presents with strangers, but it involves sending and receiving a single gift (not 36).Recent Updates Updated video with news clips from the 2018 holiday season. | [
"11506-proof-10-gifts.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits