claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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"
] |
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"
] |
The Hampton United Methodist Church called Donald Trump a pervert, a con artist, and a fascist on their church sign. | Contradiction | In January 2017, not long before the official inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, an image purportedly showing a message on the sign for the Hampton United Methodist Church made the rounds on social media: A perv, a con artist, and a fascist walk into a bar. Bartender says, 'What'll it be, Mr. President-Elect?' This is not a real photograph showing a joke about Donald Trump written on a church sign. In fact, it doesn't even show a real church sign. The original image shows a sign outside Roosevelt Middle School in Oakland, California and can be glimpsed at the 42-second mark of the following video about the school's 2012 graduation: This particular sign has been used in dozens of internet jokes, most likely because it is available as a sign template on Redkid.org: There are several places of worship called 'Hampton United Methodist Church,' but this photograph does not show any of them. | In January 2017, not long before the official inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, an image purportedly showing a message on the sign for the Hampton United Methodist Church made the rounds on social media: A perv, a con artist, and a fascist walk into a bar. Bartender says, 'What'll it be, Mr. President-Elect?' This is not a real photograph showing a joke about Donald Trump written on a church sign. In fact, it doesn't even show a real church sign. The original image shows a sign outside Roosevelt Middle School in Oakland, California and can be glimpsed at the 42-second mark of the following video about the school's 2012 graduation: This particular sign has been used in dozens of internet jokes, most likely because it is available as a sign template on Redkid.org: There are several places of worship called 'Hampton United Methodist Church,' but this photograph does not show any of them. | [
"11518-proof-05-fake-sign.jpg",
"11518-proof-08-church-sign.jpg",
"11518-proof-12-trump_church_sign_fb.jpg"
] |
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's tax return documents revealed that he claimed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as a dependent. | Contradiction | On Feb. 25, 2021, The New Yorker published an article positing that former U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns showed he had claimed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as a dependent: Trump's Taxes Reveal He Claimed Ted Cruz as Dependent In the first major bombshell to emerge from the handover of Donald J. Trump's tax returns, the Manhattan district attorney has announced that the former President claimed Senator Ted Cruz as a dependent. Speaking to reporters, Cyrus Vance, Jr., said that listing the Texas senator as a dependent was 'highly unorthodox, to say the least.' This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with Andy Borowitz's 'The Borowitz Report,' which describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: 'Satire from the Borowitz Report: Not the News.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. | On Feb. 25, 2021, The New Yorker published an article positing that former U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns showed he had claimed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as a dependent: Trump's Taxes Reveal He Claimed Ted Cruz as Dependent In the first major bombshell to emerge from the handover of Donald J. Trump's tax returns, the Manhattan district attorney has announced that the former President claimed Senator Ted Cruz as a dependent. Speaking to reporters, Cyrus Vance, Jr., said that listing the Texas senator as a dependent was 'highly unorthodox, to say the least.' This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with Andy Borowitz's 'The Borowitz Report,' which describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: 'Satire from the Borowitz Report: Not the News.' For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. | [
"11520-proof-10-GettyImages-1052770654-scaled.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows two people with the darkest and lightest skin colors in the world. | Contradiction | A photograph of two men is frequently shared with the misleading claim that it shows the lightest and darkest skin colors in the world: 'The Lightest and Darkest skin colour. Human Diversity is amazing. While the two models pictured in the photo shown above do have dramatically different skin tones, the colors portrayed in this image were achieved with makeup and does not represent their true skin colors. The photograph was taken by Rachel Litchfield for a spread in Chaos Magazine in 2011, and featured models Papis Loveday and Shaun Ross: While Chaos Magazine did not provide information about how the colors were achieved, photographs of Ross and Loveday show that their skin tones in person are quite different than what was portrayed in the 'Out Of Circulation' photo shoot: Furthermore, an image on the website of Alexis Knox, the stylist for the Chaos Magazine spread, shows makeup being applied to one of the models: | A photograph of two men is frequently shared with the misleading claim that it shows the lightest and darkest skin colors in the world: 'The Lightest and Darkest skin colour. Human Diversity is amazing. While the two models pictured in the photo shown above do have dramatically different skin tones, the colors portrayed in this image were achieved with makeup and does not represent their true skin colors. The photograph was taken by Rachel Litchfield for a spread in Chaos Magazine in 2011, and featured models Papis Loveday and Shaun Ross: While Chaos Magazine did not provide information about how the colors were achieved, photographs of Ross and Loveday show that their skin tones in person are quite different than what was portrayed in the 'Out Of Circulation' photo shoot: Furthermore, an image on the website of Alexis Knox, the stylist for the Chaos Magazine spread, shows makeup being applied to one of the models: | [
"11623-proof-01-1234130_10151891111609792_661614405_n.jpg",
"11623-proof-03-skin-color.jpg",
"11623-proof-05-chaos-magazine.jpg"
] |
St. Patrick led the genocide of a contingent of Twa 'pygmies' from Central Africa, who were the original inhabitants of Ireland. | Contradiction | In the summer of 2019, we received renewed inquiries from readers about an unusual interpretation of the legacy of St. Patrick, one that claimed the patron saint of Ireland was responsible for the genocide of an African tribe who were purportedly the original inhabitants of that island. The theory has given rise to many memes and social media posts that in recent years have been shared widely, especially around March 17, the feast day of St. Patrick. The memes are often accompanied by images that appear to show white men posing with African pygmies. A typical version of the meme claims: 'The Twa pygmies of Ireland, the original inhabitants. The source of [the] leprechaun legend. When you celebrate St. Patrick's Day that's the celebration of their genocide.' The theory was neatly summarized by the author and speaker B.F. Nkrumah in a widely shared Facebook video in March 2018: The theory is not backed by any historical evidence, and as a set of factual claims, it can be dismissed. One prominent historian told Snopes it was, simply, 'complete nonsense.' The origins of the 'Twa' theory of Irish prehistory are not entirely clear. However, it appears to be informed by what is sometimes referred to as 'Afrocentrism,' an approach to historical study that emphasizes the role and achievements of African people in the evolution of Western civilization. The theory also seems to be influenced by euhemerism, an unusual strand of pseudohistory that was particularly popular in the 19th century. Background The Twa (or 'Batwa') are a people indigenous to the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. They are sometimes referred to as Twa pygmies, an anthropological term denoting their relatively short stature. Although some exact details are lacking about the life of St. Patrick, it is generally accepted among historians that he lived in the 5th Century A.D., grew up in Roman-occupied Britain (probably in Wales or the West coast of England), was kidnapped as a boy and taken to the island of Ireland as a slave for six years, then returned to Britain. He trained as a Christian cleric and went back to Ireland as a missionary. One of the legends attached to Patrick in the centuries following his death was that he banished the snakes from Ireland. This is not based in fact. No fossil records have shown that snakes were ever indigenous to the island of Ireland, and the myth was likely a metaphor for the Christianization (and decline in paganism) for which Patrick and other early Irish saints are credited. The earliest archaeological evidence of human habitation on the island of Ireland dates to between 10,640 and 10,860 B.C. No evidence exists to show that Twa pygmies settled the island at any point in history, beyond which it makes little sense to imagine that a traditional hunter-forager people that emerged from landlocked Central Africa would have had the geographical awareness or technical knowledge to construct and sail ships thousands of miles northwest. Development of the theory We found several iterations of the Twa theory of Irish prehistory. One version, published in 2007 by the website of the Amen Ankh community in Kansas City, Missouri, offered the following outline: Indigo melaninated people are the original 'Snake Headed' people of Ireland. We are the ones who were driven off (and/or slaughtered,) in the name of a Catholic 'saint' named Patrick, who ironically wore the symbols of Ptah and Ausar. Our Black Ancestors of the east knew about the powers of all of the indigenous Herbs, Roots, and plants like Clover and Thistle. We are the first mound builders and healers all over the planet. This shines a new reference on the 1st REAL 'Europeans.' The Twa/Khoisan were known as elves, midgets, or pygmy (a slur on small people of African Descent) who have a history pre-dating the Greco Roman Judeo timeline history of Adam and Eve by more 200,000 years. The Ancient Twa people were nomadic, They journeyed and migrated all continents and island over the planet, spreading to Northern Ireland, Germany and the rest of Europe, and the Asian continent, and had settled in these western lands, prior to any of the influences of the Romans or later, the Roman Catholic Church. They had a cultural, technological, and philosophical impact, and influenced the establishments of societies, known as Pagans or Druids. One of the cultural influences the Druids/Twa had was the fact that they were known for their hair, who many grew into locks that looked like snakes. Much later, the Heru Loc, worn to one side of the temple, was represented in the fez or head covering that also depicted the Kemet symbols known is a Uraeus or cobra raised to strike, which is the same snake image you see worn as a Menes, by the Queens and Kings of ancient Kemet (Egypt/Nubia Ka Ma Ta). In many African cultures, the serpent is not a symbol of evil but one of eternal life, regeneration, power, protection, and wisdom. The Snake also represented the Kundalini awakening vortex found in the chakra energy traveling up our spines and the helix of our DNA. Much of this account is simply incoherent, and the only would-be evidence put forward for the claim that St. Patrick engaged in genocide against the Twa is that the knotted hairstyle of Twa and ethnic Bantu peoples bears something of a resemblance to snakes. This is a quintessential example of pseudohistory - starting off with the requirement of proving that Twa pygmies were the original inhabitants not only of Ireland but of the whole European continent, and then retrospectively finding any available connections (even tentative symbolic links), including links to a different cultural tradition to the Central African Twa pygmies, that of ancient Egypt. This is not even to mention the unexplained and inexplicable introduction of Hindu concepts (Kundalini and chakra) into the theory. Another good example of this incoherence can be found in the same blog post's explanation of how the purported etymology of the word 'leprechaun' establishes a link between African pygmies and the island of Ireland: 'The word 'leprechaun' can be taken from several sources. Breaking down the syllables and removing the vowels, you can reveal the earliest Twa/Nubian/Kemetic origins: le-pr-rah ka-hn. Le (Leo/lion/king), Pr (House/temple), Re/ra-rah (Sun/Leo/lion), Ka (an attendant spirit supposedly dwelling as a vital force in a man or statue, the spiritual part of an individual believed by ancient Egyptians to survive the body after death). 'Kahn' is a title for a sovereign or military ruler or chief.' This is not how etymology actually works. For one thing, the purported etymological components of the word are supposed to amount to some meaning. That meaning is never provided in this case - are we to conclude that 'leprechaun,' based on its Egyptian linguistic roots, means 'Lion spirit in a king's house'? Or 'Sun ruler of the lion's spirit temple'? The explanation fails woefully, even on its own terms. Moreover, this etymological analysis begins with the imposition of an unacceptable and arbitrary linguistic rule ('removing the vowels'), which the analysis itself promptly violates by including multiple vowels. Once again, the supposed origins of the word 'leprechaun' are claimed to reside in ancient Egypt, not in the culture and linguistic history of the sub-Saharan Twa peoples. So even if this etymological breakdown was accurate or logical, it would establish a linguistic link between Egypt and Ireland, not the Central African Twa pygmies and Ireland. What implications would this have for the core claim that the Twa were the original settlers and inhabitants of Ireland? This type of goalpost-shifting and cherrypicking is typical of much pseudohistory, including Afrocentrist pseudohistory. In her book 'Not Out of Africa,' the classical scholar Mary Lefkowitz described the Afrocentrist push to claim for the ancient Egyptians major intellectual innovations which belonged, in fact, to the ancient Greeks: 'Afrocentrism is not simply an alternative interpretation of history, offered on the basis of complex data or ambiguities in the evidence: there is simply no reason to deprive the Greeks of the credit for their own achievements. The basic facts are clear enough, at least to dispassionate observers. In effect, Afrocentrists are demanding that ordinary historical methodology be discarded in favor of a system of their own choosing. This system allows them to ignore chronology and facts if they are inconvenient for their purposes. In other words, their historical methodology allows them to alter the course of history to meet their own specific needs.' In reality, the word 'leprechaun' is ultimately derived, relatively straightforwardly, from two roots: the Old Irish 'lú' ('small') and 'chorpán' ('body,' from the Latin 'corpus'). Euhemerism As well as elements of Afrocentrist pseudohistory, the theory also shows signs of having been indirectly influenced by a relatively obscure pseudohistorical movement that was particularly popular in the 19th century. Euhemerism was an approach to folklore and mythology that sought to explain popular fairy tales and myths as being ultimately grounded in historical fact. It constituted an unusual combination of rationalism (elves and fairies were not supernatural beings) with pseudohistory (the stories around them originated in an actual, historical race of pygmies that occupied parts of Europe thousands of years ago). At least two recent accounts of the Twa theory of Irish prehistory cited a euhemerist text from 1911, 'Riddles of Prehistoric Times,' a book written by James H. Anderson, a retired attorney from Iowa. Anderson posited a broader theory of early pygmy races being the first settlers of several parts of the world, including Ireland: 'The first inhabitants of southern Europe, northern Africa, Arabia, France and the British Islands were a race of small men, who did not average in height more than about 4 feet 5 inches. They were of slight build, with dark complexion. They were cave-dwellers emanations [sic] from Lemuria [a fictional land mass in the Indian Ocean, similar to the mythical island of Atlantis] ... They were an African people, and there appears evidence that they sometimes practiced cannibalism. 'It is said that the first people in Ireland were the Formatians. They were a dark, stunted race, utterly savage, using rough, unwrought stone implements. So far as can be learned, they did not know the use of fire. It is said they came from Africa on ships.' Several points discredit this account and therefore any theory or historical claims based on it. Firstly, the reference to Lemuria as an actual, historical inhabited place (as opposed to a mythical land mass) is a red flag, as are Anderson's similar references to Atlantis elsewhere in the book. Moreover, Anderson refers to the 'Formatians' as the first inhabitants of Ireland. We found no reference in any other historical accounts to such people, and the author probably intended to refer to the 'Fomorians,' who were a race of supernatural, villainous, sea-faring giants in Irish mythology. They did not exist in history. Later in the book, Anderson described the 'Formorians' (a misspelling) in the following way: 'The ancient Irish historians tell of Ireland being settled before the flood by Formorians [sic] led by the Lady, Banblia or Kesair, her maiden name being h'Erni or Berba ... The Formorians [sic] were said to be descended from Noah; they lived by piracy. Their chief god was Baal, Bel, from whom Belfast was named, the god of the Sun ...' In reality, the place name 'Belfast' (the capital city of present-day Northern Ireland) is derived from two Irish words: 'Béal' (meaning mouth) and 'feirste' (a form of the word 'fearsaid,' meaning 'sand-bank ford'). The river mouth in question is that of the famous River Lagan, on whose banks Belfast is located. Those types of basic and glaring factual errors are scattered throughout Anderson's book, which also repeatedly presents mythological places and figures as having actually existed in history. Present-day versions of the Afrocentrist theory of Irish prehistory, and St. Patrick's genocide of the Twa pygmies, in particular, actually undermine their own credibility by citing accounts such as Anderson's as supportive evidence. Several versions of the theory also cite the work of an influential euhemerist, the Scottish folklorist David MacRitchie. In particular, multiple present-day iterations of the 'African pygmy' theory of Irish prehistory refer to passages from MacRitchie's two-volume 1884 book 'Ancient and Modern Britons,' in which he laid out the theory of a race of pygmies who populated Ireland, Britain and parts of Scandinavia during the Stone Age. That theory has been discredited by the fact that no archaeological discoveries have ever substantiated it. In one instance, MacRitchie attempted to draw inferences from the etymology of certain Irish phrases, writing: 'That the wild tribes of Ireland were black men is hinted by the fact that a 'wild Irishman' is in Gaelic a 'black Irishman' ('Dubh Eireannach'). However, the use of the word 'dubh' in the Irish language is complicated. Literally, it means 'black' or 'dark,' but it has various somewhat poetic and figurative meanings when used as a modifier and prefix, such as in the phrase 'Dubh Eireannach.' In support of his etymological proposition, MacRitchie cited an 1825 Irish dictionary published by the Scottish lexicographer Robert Archibald Armstrong. That document lists dozens of compound words using 'dubh' as a prefix, with widely varying meanings, for example: 'dubh-cheist' (literally 'black/dark question') for 'puzzle'; 'dubh-fhocal' (literally 'black/dark word') for 'riddle' or 'parable'; and 'dubh-bhuille' (literally 'black/dark blow') for a 'fatal blow.' It would clearly be a mistake, then, to interpret a given use of the word 'dubh' as literally meaning 'black or dark in physical appearance,' as opposed to having some other metaphorical sense. The very source used by MacRitchie himself establishes that much, and therefore undermines his etymological argument, as cited by many proponents of the present-day 'Twa pygmy' theory of Irish prehistory. Moreover, even if the phrase 'Dubh Eireannach' was intended to literally mean 'an Irishman dark in appearance,' it's important to remember that racial spectrums vary between cultures, and what might have been regarded as dark complexion in Stone Age Ireland would have been described very differently indeed by an inhabitant of Africa at that time. Conclusion The 'African pygmy' theory of Irish prehistory, and in particular the theory of St. Patrick's genocide of the Twa people, represent a fascinating, if confused and at times incoherent, jumble of various long-discredited strands of pseudohistory and euhemerized versions of Irish, Bantu, Egyptian and other mythologies. Kairn Klieman, an associate professor of history at the University of Houston and author of a history of the Batwa pygmies of Central Africa, dismissed the theory as a 'mish-mash of ideas,' but said it was an interesting attempt to understand the ways in which various geographically separated cultures developed similar ideas about 'little people,' in particular conferring on them magical and supernatural powers. Writing by email, she told us the theory explores 'real similarities that exist in terms of myths about small people associated with the earth (sprites, leprechauns, mythical pygmies, mythical batwa). These myths existed since Egyptian times and there is a long intellectual history of how they came, in Western minds, to be associated with primordial humans. When the Europeans met Batwa, they unloaded all of this myth onto them.' However, Klieman added that: 'The idea that 'pygmies' or small dark people inhabited the world in ancient days is a 19th century trope that builds on the ancient myth of the pygmy in the western world.' We also put the theory to Dáibhí Ó'Cróinín, professor of history at the National University of Ireland in Galway, and the author of a history of early medieval Ireland. His emailed response was unequivocal: 'Complete nonsense,' he wrote. | Conclusion The 'African pygmy' theory of Irish prehistory, and in particular the theory of St. Patrick's genocide of the Twa people, represent a fascinating, if confused and at times incoherent, jumble of various long-discredited strands of pseudohistory and euhemerized versions of Irish, Bantu, Egyptian and other mythologies. Kairn Klieman, an associate professor of history at the University of Houston and author of a history of the Batwa pygmies of Central Africa, dismissed the theory as a 'mish-mash of ideas,' but said it was an interesting attempt to understand the ways in which various geographically separated cultures developed similar ideas about 'little people,' in particular conferring on them magical and supernatural powers. Writing by email, she told us the theory explores 'real similarities that exist in terms of myths about small people associated with the earth (sprites, leprechauns, mythical pygmies, mythical batwa). These myths existed since Egyptian times and there is a long intellectual history of how they came, in Western minds, to be associated with primordial humans. When the Europeans met Batwa, they unloaded all of this myth onto them.' However, Klieman added that: 'The idea that 'pygmies' or small dark people inhabited the world in ancient days is a 19th century trope that builds on the ancient myth of the pygmy in the western world.' We also put the theory to Dáibhí Ó'Cróinín, professor of history at the National University of Ireland in Galway, and the author of a history of early medieval Ireland. His emailed response was unequivocal: 'Complete nonsense,' he wrote. | [] |
People working with 5G equipment are required to use hazmat suits to protect themselves against radiation. | Contradiction | The internet is awash with conspiracy theories that allege 5G cellphone networks pose health risks that world health officials are hiding from the general public. In support of that assertion, a meme suggested that the installation of a 5G cellphone tower requires those performing such installations to wear 'hazmat radiation suits' to protect themselves: Scientifically, this claim makes zero sense. While cell towers in general do use electromagnetic radiation (in this case radio waves) to transmit data, that form of radiation is non-ionizing - a classification of radiation that 'includes visible light, heat, radar, microwaves, and radio waves' and 'does not have sufficient energy to break molecular bonds or remove electrons from atoms,' according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a result, as stated at Cancer.org, these forms of non-ionizing radiation do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, 'which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer.' Even if the cell tower pictured above emitted ionizing radiation for some reason, the worker's suit would not protect against it. The worker appears to be wearing a Tyvek suit, which is designed to 'protect against particulates and other contaminants.' Ionizing radiation is neither a particle nor a contaminant, and in point of fact, there is no hazmat suit capable of blocking ionizing radiation. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, '[personal protective equipment] cannot protect against exposure from high energy, highly penetrating forms of ionizing radiation associated with most radiation emergencies.' In short, the worker pictured here is wearing a suit that would not protect against the harm alleged to be caused by a 5G cellphone tower, and therefore the picture is of questionable utility in documenting the unfounded claim that such a tower secretly emits ionizing radiation. As for the image itself, it appears to have originated with a 6 May 2019 post to the Instagram page 'theorgonizedearth.' That page, which dabbles in pseudoscience and pushes an anti-vaccination narrative, provided no additional details about where and when the photograph was taken. Furthermore, the claim that the pictured person is wearing a hazmat suit seems to be based solely on what can be observed in the image. In other words, this claim is based on an assumption of what the image shows. And while this image may appear at first glance to some as if it captures a person in a hazmat suit working on a 5G tower, blurry photographs of faraway objects rarely constitute credible evidence. Although we haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what is going on in this scene, Scott Krouse, director of the National Association of Tower Erectors' (NATE) Wireless Industry Network (WIN), agreed that this worker was wearing a Tyvek suit. Krouse also told us that cell-tower workers were not required to wear hazmat suits while working with 5G equipment, and that the cell tower featured in this viral image wasn't even a 5G tower: No, cell tower workers do not have to wear hazmat suits when working with 5G equipment. No, cell tower workers do not have to wear anything special for 5G that they didn't wear for 3G or 4G. In the attached photo, the worker is standing in a man-lift, fully tied off for safety, holding some time of wand. He could be painting, but most likely he is cleaning bird dung off the monopole. Therefore, the need for a Tyvek suit to prevent back-splash onto his skin and clothing. As you can see, this is a 'mono-palm' disguised to look like a palm tree. These poles are very popular with nesting birds and over time their droppings become quite abundant. For safety and health reasons, they are cleaned. This is not a 5G tower. This appears to be a standard 4G tower based on the antennas mounted to it. Again, this is most likely a standard Tyvek suit to protect the worker from either paint mist and over-spray or back splash while cleaning bird dung from the structure. Hazmat suits are not required while working with 5G equipment. In fact, we found several videos and photographs of workers installing 5G equipment without being wearing such suits: Not only did we find several other videos and photographs of technicians working with 5G equipment without hazmat suits, but our search for any similar media showing 5G workers with hazmat suits on came up empty-handed, with the exception of the questionable meme posted above. We've reached out to CTIA, a trade association representing the wireless communications industry in the U.S., and the National Association of Tower Eractors (NATE) as well as several wireless companies, and we will update this article when more information becomes available.Dan Evon | In short, the worker pictured here is wearing a suit that would not protect against the harm alleged to be caused by a 5G cellphone tower, and therefore the picture is of questionable utility in documenting the unfounded claim that such a tower secretly emits ionizing radiation. As for the image itself, it appears to have originated with a 6 May 2019 post to the Instagram page 'theorgonizedearth.' That page, which dabbles in pseudoscience and pushes an anti-vaccination narrative, provided no additional details about where and when the photograph was taken. Furthermore, the claim that the pictured person is wearing a hazmat suit seems to be based solely on what can be observed in the image. In other words, this claim is based on an assumption of what the image shows. And while this image may appear at first glance to some as if it captures a person in a hazmat suit working on a 5G tower, blurry photographs of faraway objects rarely constitute credible evidence. Although we haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what is going on in this scene, Scott Krouse, director of the National Association of Tower Erectors' (NATE) Wireless Industry Network (WIN), agreed that this worker was wearing a Tyvek suit. Krouse also told us that cell-tower workers were not required to wear hazmat suits while working with 5G equipment, and that the cell tower featured in this viral image wasn't even a 5G tower: No, cell tower workers do not have to wear hazmat suits when working with 5G equipment. No, cell tower workers do not have to wear anything special for 5G that they didn't wear for 3G or 4G. In the attached photo, the worker is standing in a man-lift, fully tied off for safety, holding some time of wand. He could be painting, but most likely he is cleaning bird dung off the monopole. Therefore, the need for a Tyvek suit to prevent back-splash onto his skin and clothing. As you can see, this is a 'mono-palm' disguised to look like a palm tree. These poles are very popular with nesting birds and over time their droppings become quite abundant. For safety and health reasons, they are cleaned. This is not a 5G tower. This appears to be a standard 4G tower based on the antennas mounted to it. Again, this is most likely a standard Tyvek suit to protect the worker from either paint mist and over-spray or back splash while cleaning bird dung from the structure. Hazmat suits are not required while working with 5G equipment. In fact, we found several videos and photographs of workers installing 5G equipment without being wearing such suits: Not only did we find several other videos and photographs of technicians working with 5G equipment without hazmat suits, but our search for any similar media showing 5G workers with hazmat suits on came up empty-handed, with the exception of the questionable meme posted above. We've reached out to CTIA, a trade association representing the wireless communications industry in the U.S., and the National Association of Tower Eractors (NATE) as well as several wireless companies, and we will update this article when more information becomes available.Dan Evon | [
"11706-proof-02-59768635_1065266486990629_2195262242885206016_n.jpg",
"11706-proof-10-5g-no-hazmat.jpg"
] |
Billionaire Steve Gouves delivered an inspirational speech on his death bed. | Contradiction | In December 2015, we looked into a bit of text being shared on social media which was said to represent the final words of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. We hoped our article helped to put the kibosh on that false rumor, but in January 2019 a nearly identical speech was circulated anew, only this time attributed to a different billionaire with an eerily similar name: Steve Gouves. The 'Steve Gouves death bed speech' was shared by many social media users in January 2019, with one of the most popular postings being that of Joshua Feurstein, an evangelical internet personality who has previously spread misinformation and is perhaps most famously known for railing about Starbucks' Christmas cups. Fuerstein's posting included a photograph of a bearded man, presumably Mr. Steve Gouves, and the following text: From my friend David Norrie Steve Gouves dies a billionaire, with a fortune of $ 7 billion, at the age of 56 from pancreatic cancer, and here are some of his last words: In other eyes, my life is the essence of success, but aside from work, I have a little joy, and in the end wealth is just a fact of life to which I am accustomed. At this moment, lying on the bed, sick and remembering all my life, I realize that all my recognition and wealth that I have is meaningless in the face of imminent death. You can hire someone to drive a car for you, make money for you - but you can not rent someone to carry the disease for you. One can find material things, but there is one thing that can not be found when it is lost - 'life'. Treat yourself well, and cherish others. As we get older we are smarter, and we slowly realize that the watch is worth $ 30 or $ 300 - both of which show the same time. Whether we carry a purse worth $ 30 or $ 300 - the amount of money in the wallets are the same. Whether we drive a car worth $ 150,000, or a car worth $ 30,000 - the road and distance are the same, we reach the same destination. If we drink a bottle worth $ 300 or wine worth $ 10 - the 'stroller' will be the same. If the house we live in is 300 square meters, or 3000 square meters - the loneliness is the same. Your true inner happiness does not come from the material things of this world. Whether you're flying first class, or economy class - if the plane crashes, you crash with it. So, I hope you understand that when you have friends or someone to talk to - this is true happiness! Five Undeniable Facts- 1. Do not educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be happy. - So when they grow up they will know the value of things, not the price. 2. Eat your food as medicine, otherwise you will need to eat your medicine as food. 3. Whoever loves you will never leave you, even if he has 100 reasons to give up. He will always find one reason to hold on. 4. There is a big difference between being human and human being. 5. If you want to go fast - go alone! But if you want to go far - go together! And in conclusion, The six best doctors in the world. 1. Sunlight 2. Rest 3. Exercise 4. Diet 5. Self-confidence 6. Friends Keep them in all stages of life and enjoy a healthy life. 'Love the people God sent you, one day he'll need them back.' 🙏🙏Something worth sharing!🙏🙏 The man in this photograph is not 'Steve Gouves' but rather James R. Kirouac, a 'Level 2 Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique Practitioner' with the company 'Leading Edge Thought,' who, as best we can tell at the time of this writing, is still very much alive: The first half of this text (everything preceding 'Treat yourself well and cherish others) is a nearly verbatim copy of the fake deathbed speech falsely attributed to Steve Jobs back in 2015. That speech appears to have originated on a random blog and was never connected to Jobs in any real way. (You can read more about the actual last words of Steve Jobs here.) The second half of this text has been circulating independently from the first since at least September 2015, when it was posted to a Chinese language blog at xuite.net. That posting was not attributed to Jobs, Guoves, or any other billionaire, and it was not shared as if it were a deathbed speech. The fake Steve Jobs deathbed speech started making its way around the web in November 2015 and readers, apparently, have revised and expanded it over the years. At some point the text posted to xuite.net was tacked onto the end of the original fake speech, Jobs' name was changed to Guoves, and an image of an unrelated bald man was employed to depict the fictional billionaire. In short: Steve Guoves did not make this speech on his death bed because Steve Guoves does not exist. Much of this text was previously attributed to Steve Jobs, but the Apple co-founder did not utter those words on his death bed either. | In short: Steve Guoves did not make this speech on his death bed because Steve Guoves does not exist. Much of this text was previously attributed to Steve Jobs, but the Apple co-founder did not utter those words on his death bed either. | [
"11733-proof-02-ss_deathbed.jpg",
"11733-proof-04-steve-gouves.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a baseball stadium repurposed as a residential neighborhood. | Contradiction | On 4 January 2016, a photograph showing a baseball stadium in Japan that purportedly had been repurposed as a housing project or residential neighborhood was posted to Reddit: Although the photograph is real and does picture several homes built within the walls of a baseball stadium, those structures never housed residents for any extended period of time. This photograph was taken by Japanese photographer Naoya Hatakeyama in 1998, and although it is frequently shared with the claim that it depicts a residential neighborhood built inside a stadium, it's actually a picture of a group of model homes. According to the Japanese-language web site Fudoki, Osaka Stadium was once home to the Nankai Hawks baseball team, but when the Hawks moved to Heiwadai Stadium in 1988, the city of Osaka turned the stadium into an outdoor display area for model homes: The Online Photographer web site posted another image of the stadium, along with some background information about it from photographer Ned Bunnell: To provide some context for this photo, Osaka stadium was home to the Nankai Hawks baseball team. I remember the Hawks name because I bought caps for my boys and they were quite the curiosity item with all their friends. The Hawks were sold and moved to Fukuoka City in 1988 or 1989. Since the stadium was abandoned, the City of Osaka, working with a trade group, turned it into a giant outdoor home show with rows of various model homes from several construction companies. If I remember correctly, the houses were a failure, as most Japanese in the greater Osaka area were not interested in western style housing and the quality of construction was not up to their expectations. I think the stadium was finally demolished in the late '90s. In short, it is true that several houses were assembled inside Osaka Stadium in the early 1990s, but these structures were merely model homes and were never used for long-term occupation by residents.Dan Evon | In short, it is true that several houses were assembled inside Osaka Stadium in the early 1990s, but these structures were merely model homes and were never used for long-term occupation by residents.Dan Evon | [
"11754-proof-03-house-in-stadium.jpg",
"11754-proof-05-stadium-neighborhood.jpg"
] |
Photographs show a woman named 'Tea Cup Sallie' and her prostitution license. | Contradiction | A photograph of a busty woman with a set of tea cups resting on her chest is frequently shared online along with the claim that her name was 'Tea Cup Sallie,' and that she was a notorious prostitute who reportedly lived sometime in the late 1800s: This image is frequently coupled with a second photograph purportedly showing Tea Cup Sallie's 'license for prostitution': We've found no evidence to support the claim that this woman was a prostitute named 'Tea Cup Sallie,' and this 'license' certificate is a modern recreation, not a genuine artifact. The 'Tea Cup Sallie' claim appears to have originated circa 2015 with a post to the WTF section of Reddit. Nearly five years before that posting, however, this photograph was being shared online with a much more mundane claim: The picture simply showed a 'tea lady.' The photograph reached a much wider audience when it was included in a 2014 article on Whizzpast (subsequently aggregated by Bored Panda) concerning silly photographs of people during the Victorian era. From there, it was shared with a variety of captions (some more crude than others) before it was attached to this prostitution license. The 'license for prostitution' has a number of questionable features. For one, the price sticker on the upper-right corner indicates this item was likely available in some sort of gift shop, meaning that this is almost certainly a reproduction and not a genuine artifact from 1898. Furthermore, we've found several other copies of 'Tea Cup Sallie's license for prostitution' that were supposedly issued in several other cities, by several different people (including Wyatt Earp), over the span of more than 40 years from 1876 to 1920: The above-displayed images supposedly showed how 'Tea Cup Sallie' received a prostitution license in Dodge City, Kansas, in 1876; Prescott, Arizona, in 1896; Jerome, Arizona, in 1897 and 1898; and Williams, Arizona, in 1920. Given that the life expectancy during this time period hovered around the age of 50, we're a bit skeptical that this woman had a 44-year prostitution career. The certificate appears to be a novelty item loosely based on historical events. In the 1860s, for instance, Nashville's Provost Marshal George Spalding was ordered to round up all of the prostitutes in the city and banish them. The task proved impossible, however, and soon Spalding came up with a new plan: He'd issue licenses and require prostitutes to undergo medical exams: Spalding's proposal was simple: Each prostitute would register herself, obtaining for $5 a license entitling her to work as she pleased. A doctor approved by the Army would be charged with examining prostitutes each week, a service for which each woman would pay a 50 cent fee. Women found to have venereal diseases would be sent to a hospital established (in the home of the former Catholic bishop) for the treatment of such ailments, paid for in part by the weekly fees. Engaging in prostitution without a license, or failing to appear for scheduled examinations, would result in arrest and a jail term of 30 days. The prospect of participating in the sex trade without fear of arrest or prosecution was instantly attractive to most of Nashville's prostitutes, and by early 1864 some 352 women were on record as being licensed, and another hundred had been successfully treated for syphilis and other conditions hazardous to their industry. In the summer of 1864, one doctor at the hospital remarked on a 'marked improvement' in the licensed prostitutes' physical and mental health, noting that at the beginning of the initiative the women had been characterized by use of crude language and little care for personal hygiene, but were soon virtual models of 'cleanliness and propriety.' While licenses for prostitution weren't totally unheard of, the viral item showing a 'license for prostitution' is a novelty item that doesn't use a real name, date, location, signatory, or photograph. It seems that this certificate is merely a template. The seller can add in a reasonable sounding date and location, a vintage scandalous photograph, and a signature from a well-known figure from the Wild West, and then sell the 'license' as a novelty item. We found a few other examples of this prostitution license that contain some historical inaccuracies. The image on the left uses a piece of currency that was not in circulation at the time the 'license' was supposedly issued. The image on the right features a woman in Paris, not Kansas: The particular example (on the left) is dated as 1898, yet it shows a 1901 bank note that wasn't actually printed until the 1910s. Someone obviously missed the attention to details. I think the licenses are usually signed by famous wild west lawmen like Wyatt Earp. So long story short, if you see these just understand that they are completely fraudulent and have no collector value. In short, the image at the top of this article shows an anonymous woman from the Victorian era who was taking a silly photograph with two tea cups resting on her chest. The claim that this woman's name is 'Tea Cup Sallie' is not based on any factual information, and the accompanying 'license for prostitution' is an apocryphal novelty item. | In short, the image at the top of this article shows an anonymous woman from the Victorian era who was taking a silly photograph with two tea cups resting on her chest. The claim that this woman's name is 'Tea Cup Sallie' is not based on any factual information, and the accompanying 'license for prostitution' is an apocryphal novelty item. | [
"11791-proof-04-v3nzmz7to6a31.jpg",
"11791-proof-10-licence-for-prostitution.jpg",
"11791-proof-15-tea-balance.jpg"
] |
Photographs show a woman named 'Tea Cup Sallie' and her prostitution license. | Contradiction | A photograph of a busty woman with a set of tea cups resting on her chest is frequently shared online along with the claim that her name was 'Tea Cup Sallie,' and that she was a notorious prostitute who reportedly lived sometime in the late 1800s: This image is frequently coupled with a second photograph purportedly showing Tea Cup Sallie's 'license for prostitution': We've found no evidence to support the claim that this woman was a prostitute named 'Tea Cup Sallie,' and this 'license' certificate is a modern recreation, not a genuine artifact. The 'Tea Cup Sallie' claim appears to have originated circa 2015 with a post to the WTF section of Reddit. Nearly five years before that posting, however, this photograph was being shared online with a much more mundane claim: The picture simply showed a 'tea lady.' The photograph reached a much wider audience when it was included in a 2014 article on Whizzpast (subsequently aggregated by Bored Panda) concerning silly photographs of people during the Victorian era. From there, it was shared with a variety of captions (some more crude than others) before it was attached to this prostitution license. The 'license for prostitution' has a number of questionable features. For one, the price sticker on the upper-right corner indicates this item was likely available in some sort of gift shop, meaning that this is almost certainly a reproduction and not a genuine artifact from 1898. Furthermore, we've found several other copies of 'Tea Cup Sallie's license for prostitution' that were supposedly issued in several other cities, by several different people (including Wyatt Earp), over the span of more than 40 years from 1876 to 1920: The above-displayed images supposedly showed how 'Tea Cup Sallie' received a prostitution license in Dodge City, Kansas, in 1876; Prescott, Arizona, in 1896; Jerome, Arizona, in 1897 and 1898; and Williams, Arizona, in 1920. Given that the life expectancy during this time period hovered around the age of 50, we're a bit skeptical that this woman had a 44-year prostitution career. The certificate appears to be a novelty item loosely based on historical events. In the 1860s, for instance, Nashville's Provost Marshal George Spalding was ordered to round up all of the prostitutes in the city and banish them. The task proved impossible, however, and soon Spalding came up with a new plan: He'd issue licenses and require prostitutes to undergo medical exams: Spalding's proposal was simple: Each prostitute would register herself, obtaining for $5 a license entitling her to work as she pleased. A doctor approved by the Army would be charged with examining prostitutes each week, a service for which each woman would pay a 50 cent fee. Women found to have venereal diseases would be sent to a hospital established (in the home of the former Catholic bishop) for the treatment of such ailments, paid for in part by the weekly fees. Engaging in prostitution without a license, or failing to appear for scheduled examinations, would result in arrest and a jail term of 30 days. The prospect of participating in the sex trade without fear of arrest or prosecution was instantly attractive to most of Nashville's prostitutes, and by early 1864 some 352 women were on record as being licensed, and another hundred had been successfully treated for syphilis and other conditions hazardous to their industry. In the summer of 1864, one doctor at the hospital remarked on a 'marked improvement' in the licensed prostitutes' physical and mental health, noting that at the beginning of the initiative the women had been characterized by use of crude language and little care for personal hygiene, but were soon virtual models of 'cleanliness and propriety.' While licenses for prostitution weren't totally unheard of, the viral item showing a 'license for prostitution' is a novelty item that doesn't use a real name, date, location, signatory, or photograph. It seems that this certificate is merely a template. The seller can add in a reasonable sounding date and location, a vintage scandalous photograph, and a signature from a well-known figure from the Wild West, and then sell the 'license' as a novelty item. We found a few other examples of this prostitution license that contain some historical inaccuracies. The image on the left uses a piece of currency that was not in circulation at the time the 'license' was supposedly issued. The image on the right features a woman in Paris, not Kansas: The particular example (on the left) is dated as 1898, yet it shows a 1901 bank note that wasn't actually printed until the 1910s. Someone obviously missed the attention to details. I think the licenses are usually signed by famous wild west lawmen like Wyatt Earp. So long story short, if you see these just understand that they are completely fraudulent and have no collector value. In short, the image at the top of this article shows an anonymous woman from the Victorian era who was taking a silly photograph with two tea cups resting on her chest. The claim that this woman's name is 'Tea Cup Sallie' is not based on any factual information, and the accompanying 'license for prostitution' is an apocryphal novelty item. | In short, the image at the top of this article shows an anonymous woman from the Victorian era who was taking a silly photograph with two tea cups resting on her chest. The claim that this woman's name is 'Tea Cup Sallie' is not based on any factual information, and the accompanying 'license for prostitution' is an apocryphal novelty item. | [
"11791-proof-04-v3nzmz7to6a31.jpg",
"11791-proof-10-licence-for-prostitution.jpg",
"11791-proof-15-tea-balance.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a pimp and drug dealer who made his fortune running a brothel and opium den. | Contradiction | In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete: This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: 'In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctic's menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail.' An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: 'I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett,' he wrote. 'For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings - and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex.' While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on 'his criminal rackets.' Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in 'criminal rackets,' it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | [] |
Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a pimp and drug dealer who made his fortune running a brothel and opium den. | Contradiction | In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete: This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: 'In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctic's menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail.' An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: 'I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett,' he wrote. 'For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings - and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex.' While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on 'his criminal rackets.' Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in 'criminal rackets,' it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | [] |
Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a pimp and drug dealer who made his fortune running a brothel and opium den. | Contradiction | In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete: This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: 'In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctic's menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail.' An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: 'I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett,' he wrote. 'For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings - and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex.' While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on 'his criminal rackets.' Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in 'criminal rackets,' it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. | [] |
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was married with a husband in early February 2021. | Contradiction | In early February 2021, a misleading online advertisement about an American congresswoman was displayed on the Outbrain advertising network. It said that U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known as 'AOC,' was married and teased a reveal of her husband's name: Readers who clicked the ad were led to a story on the Hollywood Tale website. It spanned 87 pages. However, the article said nothing about Ocasio-Cortez actually being married or having a husband. That's because she was not married at the time. Near the very end of the story, an incomplete and poorly written page described her boyfriend. The headline of the page left blank the amount of time that the couple had been together. The author also misspelled and failed to capitalize the name of a magazine. The Hollywood Tale page read as follows: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Riley Roberts- Together For According to a 2018 Vogue profile, Ocasio-Cortez and Roberts met while studying at Boston University, in what AOC calls a 'true nerdy fashion.' They both attended a weekly Friday afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU, called coffee and conversation. In the documentary 'Knock Down The House,' their relationship is shown and it seems like Riley is Cortez's support system. The couple is highly in-love, fun fact is that Cortez's mom is her partner's biggest fan. They are proud parents to a french bulldog. It's true that a 2018 story from Vogue chronicled the relationship between Ocasio-Cortez and her boyfriend, Riley Roberts: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it's where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development. Her mother, an Evangelical Christian born in Puerto Rico, cleaned houses. Her father, who was born in the borough and became an architect, died of lung cancer at 48. Ocasio-Cortez was then a sophomore at Boston University, where she read not Karl Marx but Martin Luther King Jr. and Howard Thurman. A classmate she's still close to is Alexandria Lafci, the cofounder of New Story, a San Francisco start-up experimenting with 3-D-printed homes in the developing world. Then there's Roberts, whom Ocasio-Cortez met-'in true nerdy fashion,' she says-at a weekly Friday-afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU. He later moved from Arizona to be with her. In sum, Ocasio-Cortez was not married in early February 2021. The misleading online advertisement was nothing more than clickbait. 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, Ocasio-Cortez was not married in early February 2021. The misleading online advertisement was nothing more than clickbait. 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. | [] |
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was married with a husband in early February 2021. | Contradiction | In early February 2021, a misleading online advertisement about an American congresswoman was displayed on the Outbrain advertising network. It said that U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known as 'AOC,' was married and teased a reveal of her husband's name: Readers who clicked the ad were led to a story on the Hollywood Tale website. It spanned 87 pages. However, the article said nothing about Ocasio-Cortez actually being married or having a husband. That's because she was not married at the time. Near the very end of the story, an incomplete and poorly written page described her boyfriend. The headline of the page left blank the amount of time that the couple had been together. The author also misspelled and failed to capitalize the name of a magazine. The Hollywood Tale page read as follows: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Riley Roberts- Together For According to a 2018 Vogue profile, Ocasio-Cortez and Roberts met while studying at Boston University, in what AOC calls a 'true nerdy fashion.' They both attended a weekly Friday afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU, called coffee and conversation. In the documentary 'Knock Down The House,' their relationship is shown and it seems like Riley is Cortez's support system. The couple is highly in-love, fun fact is that Cortez's mom is her partner's biggest fan. They are proud parents to a french bulldog. It's true that a 2018 story from Vogue chronicled the relationship between Ocasio-Cortez and her boyfriend, Riley Roberts: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it's where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development. Her mother, an Evangelical Christian born in Puerto Rico, cleaned houses. Her father, who was born in the borough and became an architect, died of lung cancer at 48. Ocasio-Cortez was then a sophomore at Boston University, where she read not Karl Marx but Martin Luther King Jr. and Howard Thurman. A classmate she's still close to is Alexandria Lafci, the cofounder of New Story, a San Francisco start-up experimenting with 3-D-printed homes in the developing world. Then there's Roberts, whom Ocasio-Cortez met-'in true nerdy fashion,' she says-at a weekly Friday-afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU. He later moved from Arizona to be with her. In sum, Ocasio-Cortez was not married in early February 2021. The misleading online advertisement was nothing more than clickbait. 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, Ocasio-Cortez was not married in early February 2021. The misleading online advertisement was nothing more than clickbait. 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. | [] |
First Lady Melania Trump banned the White House staff from receiving flu shots. | Contradiction | In January 2018, at the height of a severe flu season in the United States, reports emerged that First Lady Melania Trump had supposedly banned members of the White House staff from receiving flu vaccinations. She allegedly issued the order after learning of the 'adverse health effects' of flu shots. These claims turned up on a number of disreputable web sites, but their point of origin was a consistent purveyor of fake news and political disinformation, Your News Wire (now News Punch), who 'reported' on 22 January that: While public debate rages about the safety of this season's flu shot, Melania Trump says that as far as she is concerned, she won't have people endangering her son with their 'dangerous' flu shot diseases. 'I will not allow incubators of dangerous viruses to come anywhere near my son,' the First Lady said. After researching the ingredients used in making the flu shot, and becoming concerned about potential negative health effects, including death, Melania Trump said she was 'amazed that it [flu shot] is being pushed so hard by the media this year.' The First Lady, who proudly describes herself as a 'full-time mom', then realized that this year's flu shot is only 10% effective - and the flu strains contained in the vaccine may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza. If Melania Trump actually imposed such a ban or expressed such views, it went entirely unnoticed by legitimate news outlets, who would have reported on these alleged actions if they had taken place, especially given the controversial subject matter. We doubt, moreover, that the first lady has the power to order hundreds of White House employees to forego a preventative medical treatment that the U.S. government recommends that every American six months of age or older receive. Far from being 'pushed so hard by the media' as the article alleges, the recommendation that everyone should get a flu shot is the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the federal health agency run by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Trump appointee. According to the CDC web site: Getting an annual flu vaccine is the first and best way to protect yourself and your family from the flu. Flu vaccination can reduce flu illnesses, doctors' visits, and missed work and school due to flu, as well as prevent flu-related hospitalizations. In 2017, a study in Pediatrics was the first of its kind to show that flu vaccination also significantly reduced a child's risk of dying from influenza. The more people who get vaccinated, the more people will be protected from flu, including older people, very young children, pregnant women, and people with certain long-term health conditions who are more vulnerable to serious flu complications. Among the many other tidbits of flu vaccine misinformation the article trumpeted were the claims that the 2018 variant of the vaccine was only 10 percent effective (false: the CDC said that figure came from Australia and was an interim estimate of its effectiveness against one flu strain only) and that it 'may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza' (false: the CDC says flu vaccines cannot cause or spread influenza). In short, like most YourNewsWire articles, this one is entirely fictitious and aimed not at informing the public, but rather at attracting traffic and advertising revenue to the web site. Previous examples in this vein include Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products From the White House and Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World. | In short, like most YourNewsWire articles, this one is entirely fictitious and aimed not at informing the public, but rather at attracting traffic and advertising revenue to the web site. Previous examples in this vein include Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products From the White House and Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World. | [
"11916-proof-10-melania_trump_fb.jpg"
] |
First Lady Melania Trump banned the White House staff from receiving flu shots. | Contradiction | In January 2018, at the height of a severe flu season in the United States, reports emerged that First Lady Melania Trump had supposedly banned members of the White House staff from receiving flu vaccinations. She allegedly issued the order after learning of the 'adverse health effects' of flu shots. These claims turned up on a number of disreputable web sites, but their point of origin was a consistent purveyor of fake news and political disinformation, Your News Wire (now News Punch), who 'reported' on 22 January that: While public debate rages about the safety of this season's flu shot, Melania Trump says that as far as she is concerned, she won't have people endangering her son with their 'dangerous' flu shot diseases. 'I will not allow incubators of dangerous viruses to come anywhere near my son,' the First Lady said. After researching the ingredients used in making the flu shot, and becoming concerned about potential negative health effects, including death, Melania Trump said she was 'amazed that it [flu shot] is being pushed so hard by the media this year.' The First Lady, who proudly describes herself as a 'full-time mom', then realized that this year's flu shot is only 10% effective - and the flu strains contained in the vaccine may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza. If Melania Trump actually imposed such a ban or expressed such views, it went entirely unnoticed by legitimate news outlets, who would have reported on these alleged actions if they had taken place, especially given the controversial subject matter. We doubt, moreover, that the first lady has the power to order hundreds of White House employees to forego a preventative medical treatment that the U.S. government recommends that every American six months of age or older receive. Far from being 'pushed so hard by the media' as the article alleges, the recommendation that everyone should get a flu shot is the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the federal health agency run by Brenda Fitzgerald, a Trump appointee. According to the CDC web site: Getting an annual flu vaccine is the first and best way to protect yourself and your family from the flu. Flu vaccination can reduce flu illnesses, doctors' visits, and missed work and school due to flu, as well as prevent flu-related hospitalizations. In 2017, a study in Pediatrics was the first of its kind to show that flu vaccination also significantly reduced a child's risk of dying from influenza. The more people who get vaccinated, the more people will be protected from flu, including older people, very young children, pregnant women, and people with certain long-term health conditions who are more vulnerable to serious flu complications. Among the many other tidbits of flu vaccine misinformation the article trumpeted were the claims that the 2018 variant of the vaccine was only 10 percent effective (false: the CDC said that figure came from Australia and was an interim estimate of its effectiveness against one flu strain only) and that it 'may be responsible for spreading serious cases of influenza' (false: the CDC says flu vaccines cannot cause or spread influenza). In short, like most YourNewsWire articles, this one is entirely fictitious and aimed not at informing the public, but rather at attracting traffic and advertising revenue to the web site. Previous examples in this vein include Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products From the White House and Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World. | In short, like most YourNewsWire articles, this one is entirely fictitious and aimed not at informing the public, but rather at attracting traffic and advertising revenue to the web site. Previous examples in this vein include Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products From the White House and Bill Gates Admits Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World. | [
"11916-proof-10-melania_trump_fb.jpg"
] |
NPR published an article that described pro-Trump supporters who decried the 2020 election results storming the U.S. Capitol hours before the riot took place. | Contradiction | As news publications around the U.S. raced to accurately report the events of the Jan. 6, 2021, siege on the U.S. Capitol, live updates and edits were at the core of coverage as the story developed. Social media influencer Breck Worsham pointed out in a Jan. 7 post on conservative social media platform Parler that NPR had published an article with the headline, 'Trump Supporters Storm Capitol, Clash With Police' at 9:33 am ET - more than three hours before the building had been breached. Worsham is a self-proclaimed journalist and 'advocate for America and the Constitution' who had been banned from Twitter for 'exposing the Anti-American agenda of the liberal left.' But this claim is misleading and does not accurately detail the several iterations that the article experienced over the course of the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. Based on the URL link, the original article was indeed published at 9:33 a.m. EST but with the headline, 'Diehard Trump Supporters Gather in the Nation's Capital to Protest Election Results,' which has been archived here and is highlighted in the screenshot below: As pro-Trump supporters who rejected his loss in the 2020 presidential contest stormed the Capitol, NPR updated its original article. In an email to Snopes, NPR Senior Publicist Ben Fishel confirmed that the original story's headline had been updated to accurately reflect the turn of events on Jan. 6, and that this is NPR's 'standard practice in a developing story.' 'I can confirm that NPR is neither clairvoyant nor were we a part of a (false) conspiracy of people who staged the events of Wednesday [Jan. 6],' wrote Fishel. Snopes searched through the internet archives to determine an accurate timeline of updates to the NPR story in question. Here is what we found: At 10:10 a.m. EST, two snapshots of the NPR story were saved by internet archival tools Archive Today and Wayback Machine with the original headline, 'Diehard Trump Supporters Gather in the Nation's Capital to Protest Election Results.' At 11:16 a.m. EST, an archive of the story saved showed a second headline, ''We Are Patriots' Trump Supporters Gather in D.C. To Protest Biden's Win.' At 5:05 p.m. EST, the last and final iteration of the headline as it appeared at the time of this writing was published, which read 'Trump Supporters Storm Capitol, Clash With Police.' This update came moments after the D.C. National Guard was directed to mobilize to the Capitol. We then compared NPR's article updates with a timeline of the Jan. 6 riot and the events that led up to the eventual storming of the Capitol. In a tweet, Trump announced that the doors to his 'Save America' rally were to open at 7 a.m. EST. A C-SPAN stream of the event showed that the president took the stage about 3 1/2/ hours into the event, which mans his speech started around 10:30 a.m. EST. According to the archived video footage and a transcript by Factba.se, a database of Trump's statements, the president told supporters to gather at the U.S. Capitol on at least two occasions: After this, we're going to walk down - and I'll be there with you - we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down - anyone you want, but I think right here - we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated - lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your votes heard today. Later in the speech, Trump added: The best is yet to come. We're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue - I love Pennsylvania Avenue - and we're going to the Capitol. And we're going to try and give - the Democrats are hopeless, they never vote for anything, not even one vote - but we're going to try to give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help; we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. A timeline established by the Department of Defense outlined the events leading to the 'violent attack' at the U.S. Capitol, which showed that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had delivered a written request on Dec. 31, 2020, asking that the D.C. National Guard support local authorities in advance of the rally. For at least a week leading to the event, security personnel reviewed contingency-response options. At 1:05 p.m. EST on Jan. 6 - more than three hours after the original NPR story was published - the acting secretary of defense received reports of demonstrators moving toward the Capitol building. Capitol Police ordered an evacuation of the building 21 minutes later. In summary, it is true that NPR first ran a story covering Trump's 'Save America' rally at 9:33 a.m. EST, but the original headline did not foreshadow the eventual breach of the Capitol building, nor did it allude to a media conspiracy. A look through the internet archives showed that the URL remained the same, but the headline had been updated at least twice in order to accurately reflect events that had occurred as the story developed.Recent Updates Update [Jan. 20, 2021]: Updated to replace an inadvertently repeated blockquote with the intended passage. | In summary, it is true that NPR first ran a story covering Trump's 'Save America' rally at 9:33 a.m. EST, but the original headline did not foreshadow the eventual breach of the Capitol building, nor did it allude to a media conspiracy. A look through the internet archives showed that the URL remained the same, but the headline had been updated at least twice in order to accurately reflect events that had occurred as the story developed.Recent Updates Update [Jan. 20, 2021]: Updated to replace an inadvertently repeated blockquote with the intended passage. | [] |
NPR published an article that described pro-Trump supporters who decried the 2020 election results storming the U.S. Capitol hours before the riot took place. | Contradiction | As news publications around the U.S. raced to accurately report the events of the Jan. 6, 2021, siege on the U.S. Capitol, live updates and edits were at the core of coverage as the story developed. Social media influencer Breck Worsham pointed out in a Jan. 7 post on conservative social media platform Parler that NPR had published an article with the headline, 'Trump Supporters Storm Capitol, Clash With Police' at 9:33 am ET - more than three hours before the building had been breached. Worsham is a self-proclaimed journalist and 'advocate for America and the Constitution' who had been banned from Twitter for 'exposing the Anti-American agenda of the liberal left.' But this claim is misleading and does not accurately detail the several iterations that the article experienced over the course of the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. Based on the URL link, the original article was indeed published at 9:33 a.m. EST but with the headline, 'Diehard Trump Supporters Gather in the Nation's Capital to Protest Election Results,' which has been archived here and is highlighted in the screenshot below: As pro-Trump supporters who rejected his loss in the 2020 presidential contest stormed the Capitol, NPR updated its original article. In an email to Snopes, NPR Senior Publicist Ben Fishel confirmed that the original story's headline had been updated to accurately reflect the turn of events on Jan. 6, and that this is NPR's 'standard practice in a developing story.' 'I can confirm that NPR is neither clairvoyant nor were we a part of a (false) conspiracy of people who staged the events of Wednesday [Jan. 6],' wrote Fishel. Snopes searched through the internet archives to determine an accurate timeline of updates to the NPR story in question. Here is what we found: At 10:10 a.m. EST, two snapshots of the NPR story were saved by internet archival tools Archive Today and Wayback Machine with the original headline, 'Diehard Trump Supporters Gather in the Nation's Capital to Protest Election Results.' At 11:16 a.m. EST, an archive of the story saved showed a second headline, ''We Are Patriots' Trump Supporters Gather in D.C. To Protest Biden's Win.' At 5:05 p.m. EST, the last and final iteration of the headline as it appeared at the time of this writing was published, which read 'Trump Supporters Storm Capitol, Clash With Police.' This update came moments after the D.C. National Guard was directed to mobilize to the Capitol. We then compared NPR's article updates with a timeline of the Jan. 6 riot and the events that led up to the eventual storming of the Capitol. In a tweet, Trump announced that the doors to his 'Save America' rally were to open at 7 a.m. EST. A C-SPAN stream of the event showed that the president took the stage about 3 1/2/ hours into the event, which mans his speech started around 10:30 a.m. EST. According to the archived video footage and a transcript by Factba.se, a database of Trump's statements, the president told supporters to gather at the U.S. Capitol on at least two occasions: After this, we're going to walk down - and I'll be there with you - we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down - anyone you want, but I think right here - we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated - lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your votes heard today. Later in the speech, Trump added: The best is yet to come. We're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue - I love Pennsylvania Avenue - and we're going to the Capitol. And we're going to try and give - the Democrats are hopeless, they never vote for anything, not even one vote - but we're going to try to give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help; we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. A timeline established by the Department of Defense outlined the events leading to the 'violent attack' at the U.S. Capitol, which showed that D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had delivered a written request on Dec. 31, 2020, asking that the D.C. National Guard support local authorities in advance of the rally. For at least a week leading to the event, security personnel reviewed contingency-response options. At 1:05 p.m. EST on Jan. 6 - more than three hours after the original NPR story was published - the acting secretary of defense received reports of demonstrators moving toward the Capitol building. Capitol Police ordered an evacuation of the building 21 minutes later. In summary, it is true that NPR first ran a story covering Trump's 'Save America' rally at 9:33 a.m. EST, but the original headline did not foreshadow the eventual breach of the Capitol building, nor did it allude to a media conspiracy. A look through the internet archives showed that the URL remained the same, but the headline had been updated at least twice in order to accurately reflect events that had occurred as the story developed.Recent Updates Update [Jan. 20, 2021]: Updated to replace an inadvertently repeated blockquote with the intended passage. | In summary, it is true that NPR first ran a story covering Trump's 'Save America' rally at 9:33 a.m. EST, but the original headline did not foreshadow the eventual breach of the Capitol building, nor did it allude to a media conspiracy. A look through the internet archives showed that the URL remained the same, but the headline had been updated at least twice in order to accurately reflect events that had occurred as the story developed.Recent Updates Update [Jan. 20, 2021]: Updated to replace an inadvertently repeated blockquote with the intended passage. | [] |
Texas' photo ID law means voters whose photo ID name doesn't match their birth certificate name must bring marriage and divorce documents to the polls. | Contradiction | In the weeks leading up to the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, reports of voter suppression and voter fraud intensified, and a years-old meme emerged which gave the impression that the state of Texas was disenfranchising women en masse: Texas is preventing up to 1/3 of female voters from voting. Voter card MUST match birth certificate. If different, documentation required This means if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote! Although we received inquiries from readers about these claims starting in August 2018, the meme itself, created by the Facebook page 'Meme GOP,' actually first emerged in the autumn of 2013, in the lead-up to two special statewide elections in Texas. The meme referenced a real voter ID controversy that occurred in Texas in 2012 and 2013, but it presented some details falsely and significantly overstated the extent to which the policy in question actually impeded voters, including women, from casting their ballots. Background In 2011, Texas state legislators passed S.B. 14, a bill which required registered voters to show photo ID at polling stations. The accepted forms of ID were specified as: driver's license, election identification certificate, Texas Department of Public Safety personal ID card, military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, U.S. passport, and a concealed handgun license. If a voter's name as shown on the photo ID did not exactly match the name on the voter rolls but was 'substantially similar' in the opinion of polling station staff, the voter could cast a ballot after signing an affidavit swearing that they were the same person listed on the voter roll: On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed for us that election clerks were trained to look for overlaps in information, including residential addresses and dates of birth, and treat former names (for example names used in the course of marriage, divorce, or re-marriage) as 'substantially similar.' What this meant was that, in principle, even voters whose last names had changed since they registered to vote could cast full ballots (as opposed to a provisional ballots) without any requirement to bring additional documentation to the polling station. The only differences in their voting experiences were that they would have to sign sworn affidavits and check a box labeled 'Similar Name' on their ballots. It's possible that some voters might be discouraged from voting by these requirements (especially the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit), or that some election clerks might not be comprehensively trained in the relevant procedures, or that a confusion or delay over names might prompt a voter who was pressed for time to give up on casting a ballot. However, the meme was wrong in its claim that the photo ID law in place in Texas in 2013 'prevented' anyone (including women) from voting, or that voters were required to bring marriage or divorce documents to the polling station. Evolution of the policy Before S.B. 14 could be implemented in 2012, Texas had to obtain federal approval, under a structure set out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination (including Texas) to get 'pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice when implementing laws that affect the free exercise of the right to vote. The Justice Department denied Texas this pre-clearance, finding that the photo ID requirements in S.B. 14 would disproportionately affect the rights of voters from racial and ethnic minorities. Texas took their application for pre-clearance to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Justice Department's decision. As a result, the new photo ID law was kept in administrative limbo for almost another year. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a case called Shelby County vs. Holder. Roughly speaking, the court ruled unconstitutional the formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states had to get federal pre-clearance for changes to their voting practices. Since this was the mechanism by which the Justice Department had blocked S.B. 14, the path was now clear for Texas to enforce their new voter ID laws. In October 2013, the provisions of S.B. 14 were used for the first time during two relatively minor statewide elections, but controversy emerged when two high-profile Texas women encountered difficulties at the polling stations due to discrepancies involving their names, as USA Today reported: One of those voters was state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national prominence in June for an 11-hour filibuster against a law restricting abortion. Davis, a Democrat who is now running for governor, opposed the voter ID law but got the affidavit procedure added as an amendment. [D]uring the state's early voting, Davis had to sign an affidavit while voting because her driver's license includes her maiden name while her voter registration does not. 'It was a simple procedure,' Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.' But she said she worries that other women in Texas may be 'surprised' by the requirement. The law doesn't apply only to women: Davis' likely opponent in the 2014 governor's race, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, says he will have to sign the affidavit also since the name on his driver's license is Gregory Wayne Abbott, but he is registered to vote as Greg Abbott. South Texas television station KIII described the experience of District Judge Sandra Watts: The problem came to light when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot. 'What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,' 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said. Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a 'voters affidavit' affirming she was who she said she was. 'Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'' Watts said. The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag. 'This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,' Watts said. After 2013, the photo ID law went through a somewhat complicated legal saga, which is well summarized here. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed a new photo ID law called S.B. 5, which somewhat relaxed the ID requirements and gained U.S. Court of Appeals approval in April 2018. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's office confirmed to us that the procedures relating to 'substantially similar' names had not changed under S.B. 5 and remained as they were under S.B. 14. Therefore, the meme's claims about divorce documents and birth and marriage certificates were as inaccurate about the law in October 2018 as they were in October 2013. The latest official guidelines for election judges and clerks in Texas outline the procedures that are relevant to voters whose last names have changed since they registered to vote: If the voter's name on the precinct's list of registered voters is not identical to the voter's name as it appears on the acceptable form of photo identification or the supporting form of identification (if applicable), the election officer will determine, under standards adopted by the Secretary of State, if the names are 'substantially similar.' If the names are substantially similar, the voter shall be accepted for voting. The voter must submit an affidavit, which is part of the combination form, stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A voter's name on the presented identification form is considered substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and a voter's name on the official list of registered voters is considered substantially similar to the name on the presented identification form if one or more of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection are present. In determining whether one or more of those circumstances are present, election workers should consider whether information on the presented identification form matches elements of the voter's information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter's residence address or date of birth, which may be strong indicators that the name on the presented identification form is substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and vice versa if: 3. Initial, Middle Name or Former Name: The voter's name on the presented identification form contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the official list of registered voters or the official list of registered voters contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the presented identification form ... These guidelines have not changed since 2014, when S.B. 14 was still in place. Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | [
"12056-proof-02-texas_voters.jpg",
"12056-proof-03-texas_flag_fb.jpg"
] |
Texas' photo ID law means voters whose photo ID name doesn't match their birth certificate name must bring marriage and divorce documents to the polls. | Contradiction | In the weeks leading up to the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, reports of voter suppression and voter fraud intensified, and a years-old meme emerged which gave the impression that the state of Texas was disenfranchising women en masse: Texas is preventing up to 1/3 of female voters from voting. Voter card MUST match birth certificate. If different, documentation required This means if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote! Although we received inquiries from readers about these claims starting in August 2018, the meme itself, created by the Facebook page 'Meme GOP,' actually first emerged in the autumn of 2013, in the lead-up to two special statewide elections in Texas. The meme referenced a real voter ID controversy that occurred in Texas in 2012 and 2013, but it presented some details falsely and significantly overstated the extent to which the policy in question actually impeded voters, including women, from casting their ballots. Background In 2011, Texas state legislators passed S.B. 14, a bill which required registered voters to show photo ID at polling stations. The accepted forms of ID were specified as: driver's license, election identification certificate, Texas Department of Public Safety personal ID card, military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, U.S. passport, and a concealed handgun license. If a voter's name as shown on the photo ID did not exactly match the name on the voter rolls but was 'substantially similar' in the opinion of polling station staff, the voter could cast a ballot after signing an affidavit swearing that they were the same person listed on the voter roll: On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed for us that election clerks were trained to look for overlaps in information, including residential addresses and dates of birth, and treat former names (for example names used in the course of marriage, divorce, or re-marriage) as 'substantially similar.' What this meant was that, in principle, even voters whose last names had changed since they registered to vote could cast full ballots (as opposed to a provisional ballots) without any requirement to bring additional documentation to the polling station. The only differences in their voting experiences were that they would have to sign sworn affidavits and check a box labeled 'Similar Name' on their ballots. It's possible that some voters might be discouraged from voting by these requirements (especially the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit), or that some election clerks might not be comprehensively trained in the relevant procedures, or that a confusion or delay over names might prompt a voter who was pressed for time to give up on casting a ballot. However, the meme was wrong in its claim that the photo ID law in place in Texas in 2013 'prevented' anyone (including women) from voting, or that voters were required to bring marriage or divorce documents to the polling station. Evolution of the policy Before S.B. 14 could be implemented in 2012, Texas had to obtain federal approval, under a structure set out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination (including Texas) to get 'pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice when implementing laws that affect the free exercise of the right to vote. The Justice Department denied Texas this pre-clearance, finding that the photo ID requirements in S.B. 14 would disproportionately affect the rights of voters from racial and ethnic minorities. Texas took their application for pre-clearance to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Justice Department's decision. As a result, the new photo ID law was kept in administrative limbo for almost another year. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a case called Shelby County vs. Holder. Roughly speaking, the court ruled unconstitutional the formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states had to get federal pre-clearance for changes to their voting practices. Since this was the mechanism by which the Justice Department had blocked S.B. 14, the path was now clear for Texas to enforce their new voter ID laws. In October 2013, the provisions of S.B. 14 were used for the first time during two relatively minor statewide elections, but controversy emerged when two high-profile Texas women encountered difficulties at the polling stations due to discrepancies involving their names, as USA Today reported: One of those voters was state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national prominence in June for an 11-hour filibuster against a law restricting abortion. Davis, a Democrat who is now running for governor, opposed the voter ID law but got the affidavit procedure added as an amendment. [D]uring the state's early voting, Davis had to sign an affidavit while voting because her driver's license includes her maiden name while her voter registration does not. 'It was a simple procedure,' Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.' But she said she worries that other women in Texas may be 'surprised' by the requirement. The law doesn't apply only to women: Davis' likely opponent in the 2014 governor's race, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, says he will have to sign the affidavit also since the name on his driver's license is Gregory Wayne Abbott, but he is registered to vote as Greg Abbott. South Texas television station KIII described the experience of District Judge Sandra Watts: The problem came to light when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot. 'What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,' 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said. Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a 'voters affidavit' affirming she was who she said she was. 'Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'' Watts said. The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag. 'This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,' Watts said. After 2013, the photo ID law went through a somewhat complicated legal saga, which is well summarized here. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed a new photo ID law called S.B. 5, which somewhat relaxed the ID requirements and gained U.S. Court of Appeals approval in April 2018. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's office confirmed to us that the procedures relating to 'substantially similar' names had not changed under S.B. 5 and remained as they were under S.B. 14. Therefore, the meme's claims about divorce documents and birth and marriage certificates were as inaccurate about the law in October 2018 as they were in October 2013. The latest official guidelines for election judges and clerks in Texas outline the procedures that are relevant to voters whose last names have changed since they registered to vote: If the voter's name on the precinct's list of registered voters is not identical to the voter's name as it appears on the acceptable form of photo identification or the supporting form of identification (if applicable), the election officer will determine, under standards adopted by the Secretary of State, if the names are 'substantially similar.' If the names are substantially similar, the voter shall be accepted for voting. The voter must submit an affidavit, which is part of the combination form, stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A voter's name on the presented identification form is considered substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and a voter's name on the official list of registered voters is considered substantially similar to the name on the presented identification form if one or more of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection are present. In determining whether one or more of those circumstances are present, election workers should consider whether information on the presented identification form matches elements of the voter's information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter's residence address or date of birth, which may be strong indicators that the name on the presented identification form is substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and vice versa if: 3. Initial, Middle Name or Former Name: The voter's name on the presented identification form contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the official list of registered voters or the official list of registered voters contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the presented identification form ... These guidelines have not changed since 2014, when S.B. 14 was still in place. Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | [
"12056-proof-02-texas_voters.jpg",
"12056-proof-03-texas_flag_fb.jpg"
] |
Texas' photo ID law means voters whose photo ID name doesn't match their birth certificate name must bring marriage and divorce documents to the polls. | Contradiction | In the weeks leading up to the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, reports of voter suppression and voter fraud intensified, and a years-old meme emerged which gave the impression that the state of Texas was disenfranchising women en masse: Texas is preventing up to 1/3 of female voters from voting. Voter card MUST match birth certificate. If different, documentation required This means if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote! Although we received inquiries from readers about these claims starting in August 2018, the meme itself, created by the Facebook page 'Meme GOP,' actually first emerged in the autumn of 2013, in the lead-up to two special statewide elections in Texas. The meme referenced a real voter ID controversy that occurred in Texas in 2012 and 2013, but it presented some details falsely and significantly overstated the extent to which the policy in question actually impeded voters, including women, from casting their ballots. Background In 2011, Texas state legislators passed S.B. 14, a bill which required registered voters to show photo ID at polling stations. The accepted forms of ID were specified as: driver's license, election identification certificate, Texas Department of Public Safety personal ID card, military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, U.S. passport, and a concealed handgun license. If a voter's name as shown on the photo ID did not exactly match the name on the voter rolls but was 'substantially similar' in the opinion of polling station staff, the voter could cast a ballot after signing an affidavit swearing that they were the same person listed on the voter roll: On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed for us that election clerks were trained to look for overlaps in information, including residential addresses and dates of birth, and treat former names (for example names used in the course of marriage, divorce, or re-marriage) as 'substantially similar.' What this meant was that, in principle, even voters whose last names had changed since they registered to vote could cast full ballots (as opposed to a provisional ballots) without any requirement to bring additional documentation to the polling station. The only differences in their voting experiences were that they would have to sign sworn affidavits and check a box labeled 'Similar Name' on their ballots. It's possible that some voters might be discouraged from voting by these requirements (especially the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit), or that some election clerks might not be comprehensively trained in the relevant procedures, or that a confusion or delay over names might prompt a voter who was pressed for time to give up on casting a ballot. However, the meme was wrong in its claim that the photo ID law in place in Texas in 2013 'prevented' anyone (including women) from voting, or that voters were required to bring marriage or divorce documents to the polling station. Evolution of the policy Before S.B. 14 could be implemented in 2012, Texas had to obtain federal approval, under a structure set out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination (including Texas) to get 'pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice when implementing laws that affect the free exercise of the right to vote. The Justice Department denied Texas this pre-clearance, finding that the photo ID requirements in S.B. 14 would disproportionately affect the rights of voters from racial and ethnic minorities. Texas took their application for pre-clearance to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Justice Department's decision. As a result, the new photo ID law was kept in administrative limbo for almost another year. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a case called Shelby County vs. Holder. Roughly speaking, the court ruled unconstitutional the formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states had to get federal pre-clearance for changes to their voting practices. Since this was the mechanism by which the Justice Department had blocked S.B. 14, the path was now clear for Texas to enforce their new voter ID laws. In October 2013, the provisions of S.B. 14 were used for the first time during two relatively minor statewide elections, but controversy emerged when two high-profile Texas women encountered difficulties at the polling stations due to discrepancies involving their names, as USA Today reported: One of those voters was state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national prominence in June for an 11-hour filibuster against a law restricting abortion. Davis, a Democrat who is now running for governor, opposed the voter ID law but got the affidavit procedure added as an amendment. [D]uring the state's early voting, Davis had to sign an affidavit while voting because her driver's license includes her maiden name while her voter registration does not. 'It was a simple procedure,' Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.' But she said she worries that other women in Texas may be 'surprised' by the requirement. The law doesn't apply only to women: Davis' likely opponent in the 2014 governor's race, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, says he will have to sign the affidavit also since the name on his driver's license is Gregory Wayne Abbott, but he is registered to vote as Greg Abbott. South Texas television station KIII described the experience of District Judge Sandra Watts: The problem came to light when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot. 'What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,' 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said. Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a 'voters affidavit' affirming she was who she said she was. 'Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'' Watts said. The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag. 'This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,' Watts said. After 2013, the photo ID law went through a somewhat complicated legal saga, which is well summarized here. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed a new photo ID law called S.B. 5, which somewhat relaxed the ID requirements and gained U.S. Court of Appeals approval in April 2018. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's office confirmed to us that the procedures relating to 'substantially similar' names had not changed under S.B. 5 and remained as they were under S.B. 14. Therefore, the meme's claims about divorce documents and birth and marriage certificates were as inaccurate about the law in October 2018 as they were in October 2013. The latest official guidelines for election judges and clerks in Texas outline the procedures that are relevant to voters whose last names have changed since they registered to vote: If the voter's name on the precinct's list of registered voters is not identical to the voter's name as it appears on the acceptable form of photo identification or the supporting form of identification (if applicable), the election officer will determine, under standards adopted by the Secretary of State, if the names are 'substantially similar.' If the names are substantially similar, the voter shall be accepted for voting. The voter must submit an affidavit, which is part of the combination form, stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A voter's name on the presented identification form is considered substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and a voter's name on the official list of registered voters is considered substantially similar to the name on the presented identification form if one or more of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection are present. In determining whether one or more of those circumstances are present, election workers should consider whether information on the presented identification form matches elements of the voter's information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter's residence address or date of birth, which may be strong indicators that the name on the presented identification form is substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and vice versa if: 3. Initial, Middle Name or Former Name: The voter's name on the presented identification form contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the official list of registered voters or the official list of registered voters contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the presented identification form ... These guidelines have not changed since 2014, when S.B. 14 was still in place. Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | [
"12056-proof-02-texas_voters.jpg",
"12056-proof-03-texas_flag_fb.jpg"
] |
Texas' photo ID law means voters whose photo ID name doesn't match their birth certificate name must bring marriage and divorce documents to the polls. | Contradiction | In the weeks leading up to the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, reports of voter suppression and voter fraud intensified, and a years-old meme emerged which gave the impression that the state of Texas was disenfranchising women en masse: Texas is preventing up to 1/3 of female voters from voting. Voter card MUST match birth certificate. If different, documentation required This means if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote! Although we received inquiries from readers about these claims starting in August 2018, the meme itself, created by the Facebook page 'Meme GOP,' actually first emerged in the autumn of 2013, in the lead-up to two special statewide elections in Texas. The meme referenced a real voter ID controversy that occurred in Texas in 2012 and 2013, but it presented some details falsely and significantly overstated the extent to which the policy in question actually impeded voters, including women, from casting their ballots. Background In 2011, Texas state legislators passed S.B. 14, a bill which required registered voters to show photo ID at polling stations. The accepted forms of ID were specified as: driver's license, election identification certificate, Texas Department of Public Safety personal ID card, military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, U.S. passport, and a concealed handgun license. If a voter's name as shown on the photo ID did not exactly match the name on the voter rolls but was 'substantially similar' in the opinion of polling station staff, the voter could cast a ballot after signing an affidavit swearing that they were the same person listed on the voter roll: On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed for us that election clerks were trained to look for overlaps in information, including residential addresses and dates of birth, and treat former names (for example names used in the course of marriage, divorce, or re-marriage) as 'substantially similar.' What this meant was that, in principle, even voters whose last names had changed since they registered to vote could cast full ballots (as opposed to a provisional ballots) without any requirement to bring additional documentation to the polling station. The only differences in their voting experiences were that they would have to sign sworn affidavits and check a box labeled 'Similar Name' on their ballots. It's possible that some voters might be discouraged from voting by these requirements (especially the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit), or that some election clerks might not be comprehensively trained in the relevant procedures, or that a confusion or delay over names might prompt a voter who was pressed for time to give up on casting a ballot. However, the meme was wrong in its claim that the photo ID law in place in Texas in 2013 'prevented' anyone (including women) from voting, or that voters were required to bring marriage or divorce documents to the polling station. Evolution of the policy Before S.B. 14 could be implemented in 2012, Texas had to obtain federal approval, under a structure set out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination (including Texas) to get 'pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice when implementing laws that affect the free exercise of the right to vote. The Justice Department denied Texas this pre-clearance, finding that the photo ID requirements in S.B. 14 would disproportionately affect the rights of voters from racial and ethnic minorities. Texas took their application for pre-clearance to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Justice Department's decision. As a result, the new photo ID law was kept in administrative limbo for almost another year. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a case called Shelby County vs. Holder. Roughly speaking, the court ruled unconstitutional the formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states had to get federal pre-clearance for changes to their voting practices. Since this was the mechanism by which the Justice Department had blocked S.B. 14, the path was now clear for Texas to enforce their new voter ID laws. In October 2013, the provisions of S.B. 14 were used for the first time during two relatively minor statewide elections, but controversy emerged when two high-profile Texas women encountered difficulties at the polling stations due to discrepancies involving their names, as USA Today reported: One of those voters was state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national prominence in June for an 11-hour filibuster against a law restricting abortion. Davis, a Democrat who is now running for governor, opposed the voter ID law but got the affidavit procedure added as an amendment. [D]uring the state's early voting, Davis had to sign an affidavit while voting because her driver's license includes her maiden name while her voter registration does not. 'It was a simple procedure,' Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.' But she said she worries that other women in Texas may be 'surprised' by the requirement. The law doesn't apply only to women: Davis' likely opponent in the 2014 governor's race, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, says he will have to sign the affidavit also since the name on his driver's license is Gregory Wayne Abbott, but he is registered to vote as Greg Abbott. South Texas television station KIII described the experience of District Judge Sandra Watts: The problem came to light when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot. 'What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,' 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said. Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a 'voters affidavit' affirming she was who she said she was. 'Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'' Watts said. The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag. 'This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,' Watts said. After 2013, the photo ID law went through a somewhat complicated legal saga, which is well summarized here. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed a new photo ID law called S.B. 5, which somewhat relaxed the ID requirements and gained U.S. Court of Appeals approval in April 2018. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's office confirmed to us that the procedures relating to 'substantially similar' names had not changed under S.B. 5 and remained as they were under S.B. 14. Therefore, the meme's claims about divorce documents and birth and marriage certificates were as inaccurate about the law in October 2018 as they were in October 2013. The latest official guidelines for election judges and clerks in Texas outline the procedures that are relevant to voters whose last names have changed since they registered to vote: If the voter's name on the precinct's list of registered voters is not identical to the voter's name as it appears on the acceptable form of photo identification or the supporting form of identification (if applicable), the election officer will determine, under standards adopted by the Secretary of State, if the names are 'substantially similar.' If the names are substantially similar, the voter shall be accepted for voting. The voter must submit an affidavit, which is part of the combination form, stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A voter's name on the presented identification form is considered substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and a voter's name on the official list of registered voters is considered substantially similar to the name on the presented identification form if one or more of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection are present. In determining whether one or more of those circumstances are present, election workers should consider whether information on the presented identification form matches elements of the voter's information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter's residence address or date of birth, which may be strong indicators that the name on the presented identification form is substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and vice versa if: 3. Initial, Middle Name or Former Name: The voter's name on the presented identification form contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the official list of registered voters or the official list of registered voters contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the presented identification form ... These guidelines have not changed since 2014, when S.B. 14 was still in place. Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | [
"12056-proof-02-texas_voters.jpg",
"12056-proof-03-texas_flag_fb.jpg"
] |
Texas' photo ID law means voters whose photo ID name doesn't match their birth certificate name must bring marriage and divorce documents to the polls. | Contradiction | In the weeks leading up to the November 2018 U.S. midterm elections, reports of voter suppression and voter fraud intensified, and a years-old meme emerged which gave the impression that the state of Texas was disenfranchising women en masse: Texas is preventing up to 1/3 of female voters from voting. Voter card MUST match birth certificate. If different, documentation required This means if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote! Although we received inquiries from readers about these claims starting in August 2018, the meme itself, created by the Facebook page 'Meme GOP,' actually first emerged in the autumn of 2013, in the lead-up to two special statewide elections in Texas. The meme referenced a real voter ID controversy that occurred in Texas in 2012 and 2013, but it presented some details falsely and significantly overstated the extent to which the policy in question actually impeded voters, including women, from casting their ballots. Background In 2011, Texas state legislators passed S.B. 14, a bill which required registered voters to show photo ID at polling stations. The accepted forms of ID were specified as: driver's license, election identification certificate, Texas Department of Public Safety personal ID card, military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, U.S. passport, and a concealed handgun license. If a voter's name as shown on the photo ID did not exactly match the name on the voter rolls but was 'substantially similar' in the opinion of polling station staff, the voter could cast a ballot after signing an affidavit swearing that they were the same person listed on the voter roll: On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's office confirmed for us that election clerks were trained to look for overlaps in information, including residential addresses and dates of birth, and treat former names (for example names used in the course of marriage, divorce, or re-marriage) as 'substantially similar.' What this meant was that, in principle, even voters whose last names had changed since they registered to vote could cast full ballots (as opposed to a provisional ballots) without any requirement to bring additional documentation to the polling station. The only differences in their voting experiences were that they would have to sign sworn affidavits and check a box labeled 'Similar Name' on their ballots. It's possible that some voters might be discouraged from voting by these requirements (especially the requirement to sign a sworn affidavit), or that some election clerks might not be comprehensively trained in the relevant procedures, or that a confusion or delay over names might prompt a voter who was pressed for time to give up on casting a ballot. However, the meme was wrong in its claim that the photo ID law in place in Texas in 2013 'prevented' anyone (including women) from voting, or that voters were required to bring marriage or divorce documents to the polling station. Evolution of the policy Before S.B. 14 could be implemented in 2012, Texas had to obtain federal approval, under a structure set out in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of racial discrimination (including Texas) to get 'pre-clearance' from the U.S. Department of Justice when implementing laws that affect the free exercise of the right to vote. The Justice Department denied Texas this pre-clearance, finding that the photo ID requirements in S.B. 14 would disproportionately affect the rights of voters from racial and ethnic minorities. Texas took their application for pre-clearance to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the Justice Department's decision. As a result, the new photo ID law was kept in administrative limbo for almost another year. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important opinion in a case called Shelby County vs. Holder. Roughly speaking, the court ruled unconstitutional the formula set out in the Voting Rights Act to determine which states had to get federal pre-clearance for changes to their voting practices. Since this was the mechanism by which the Justice Department had blocked S.B. 14, the path was now clear for Texas to enforce their new voter ID laws. In October 2013, the provisions of S.B. 14 were used for the first time during two relatively minor statewide elections, but controversy emerged when two high-profile Texas women encountered difficulties at the polling stations due to discrepancies involving their names, as USA Today reported: One of those voters was state Sen. Wendy Davis, who gained national prominence in June for an 11-hour filibuster against a law restricting abortion. Davis, a Democrat who is now running for governor, opposed the voter ID law but got the affidavit procedure added as an amendment. [D]uring the state's early voting, Davis had to sign an affidavit while voting because her driver's license includes her maiden name while her voter registration does not. 'It was a simple procedure,' Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 'I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.' But she said she worries that other women in Texas may be 'surprised' by the requirement. The law doesn't apply only to women: Davis' likely opponent in the 2014 governor's race, Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, says he will have to sign the affidavit also since the name on his driver's license is Gregory Wayne Abbott, but he is registered to vote as Greg Abbott. South Texas television station KIII described the experience of District Judge Sandra Watts: The problem came to light when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot. 'What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,' 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said. Watts has voted in every election for the last 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver's license hasn't changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a 'voters affidavit' affirming she was who she said she was. 'Someone looked at that and said, 'Well, they're not the same,'' Watts said. The difference? On the driver's license, Judge Watts' maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it's her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag. 'This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,' Watts said. After 2013, the photo ID law went through a somewhat complicated legal saga, which is well summarized here. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed a new photo ID law called S.B. 5, which somewhat relaxed the ID requirements and gained U.S. Court of Appeals approval in April 2018. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's office confirmed to us that the procedures relating to 'substantially similar' names had not changed under S.B. 5 and remained as they were under S.B. 14. Therefore, the meme's claims about divorce documents and birth and marriage certificates were as inaccurate about the law in October 2018 as they were in October 2013. The latest official guidelines for election judges and clerks in Texas outline the procedures that are relevant to voters whose last names have changed since they registered to vote: If the voter's name on the precinct's list of registered voters is not identical to the voter's name as it appears on the acceptable form of photo identification or the supporting form of identification (if applicable), the election officer will determine, under standards adopted by the Secretary of State, if the names are 'substantially similar.' If the names are substantially similar, the voter shall be accepted for voting. The voter must submit an affidavit, which is part of the combination form, stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters. A voter's name on the presented identification form is considered substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and a voter's name on the official list of registered voters is considered substantially similar to the name on the presented identification form if one or more of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection are present. In determining whether one or more of those circumstances are present, election workers should consider whether information on the presented identification form matches elements of the voter's information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter's residence address or date of birth, which may be strong indicators that the name on the presented identification form is substantially similar to the name on the official list of registered voters and vice versa if: 3. Initial, Middle Name or Former Name: The voter's name on the presented identification form contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the official list of registered voters or the official list of registered voters contains an initial, a middle name, or a former name that is not on the presented identification form ... These guidelines have not changed since 2014, when S.B. 14 was still in place. Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | Conclusion The 2013 meme referred to a real voter ID controversy in Texas and a 2011 law (S.B. 14) which did create certain specific requirements for voting that could disproportionately impact women because of the tradition of hanging surnames after marriage. However, S.B. 14 did not, in 2013, 'prevent' women from voting outright, as the meme claimed. Nor did a 2017 version of the photo ID law (S.B. 5.) 'prevent' anyone from voting outright. Rather, the photo ID law (in both its incarnations) meant voters whose names were different on their photo IDs than on the voter rolls could still cast ballots provided they signed sworn affidavits and checked a box labeled 'Similar Name.' The meme made two more specific factual claims. First, that a 'voter card must match [a] birth certificate.' This is inaccurate: Texas law requires that the name on a voter's photo ID must be at least substantially similar to their name as listed on the voter roll. The voter's birth certificate does not come into the equation. Second, the meme alleged that 'if a woman has been married, divorced and re-married then she must bring both marriage certificates and divorce documents in order to vote!' This is also false. In order to cast a ballot (i.e. 'in order to vote') a voter whose last name has changed need only sign an affidavit swearing that they are the same person listed on the register, and check the box on their ballot paper marked 'Similar Name.' There is no requirement to present marriage certificates or divorce documents at polling stations. | [
"12056-proof-02-texas_voters.jpg",
"12056-proof-03-texas_flag_fb.jpg"
] |
Katy Perry was banned for life from 'Saturday Night Live. | Contradiction | The iconic NBC sketch comedy series 'Saturday Night Live' has aired new episodes every year since 1975. In 2021, an 'SNL' episode from 2010 was the subject of an online advertisement that claimed Katy Perry had been 'banned for life' from the show. It appeared on a number of local news websites that displayed ads from the Outbrain advertising network. The picture in the ad showed the singer and songwriter wearing a top that featured Elmo from 'Sesame Street.' In some cases, the sponsored ad was mixed in with headlines for real news stories. The questionable 'SNL' ad appeared alongside real news stories. Readers who clicked the ad were met with a lengthy slideshow article from the website Definition.org. Instead of something similar to the ad such as 'This Is Why Katy Perry Was Banned from 'SNL,'' the headline was a broader story than originally teased: 'SNL Controversies Through the Years.' For well over 40 years, 'Saturday Night Live' has been a staple of American television. The series has produced a roster of iconic stars and pop culture moments that are pretty much no other television show can replicate. However, 'SNL' has also produced a large number of famous controversies that have led to public condemnations and firings. The worst of these 'SNL' controversies have even led to lifetime bans. Some 'SNL' controversies were caused by guest hosts or musicians who used the show's platform to try and spread a message. of their own, while others involved full-time 'SNL' cast members torpedoed their own careers. Perry did not appear until the last page of the slideshow story: Page 32. Katy Perry was playing the role of a children's library volunteer who got in trouble for her inappropriate clothes. The rest of the skit was carried heavily by the Bronx Beat ladies played by Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler, who of course were the source of the comedy in the act. But then Maya called attention to the obvious... 'Who cares if kids are looking at boobs?'. 'Boobs feed babies...I turned on CSI the other night, and there's a dead guy with a worm in his eye. But we can't look at the tops of boobs?' However, the article mentioned nothing about Perry being 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' Further, we found zero news articles that published anything of the sort. The picture of Perry was from the 2010 sketch 'Bronx Beat: Maureen Diccico.' The episode followed news that 'Sesame Street' had 'pulled' a duet video featuring Perry and Elmo after it 'drew complaints from parents due to the pop star's controversial attire.' In sum, there is no indication that Katy Perry was 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' The ad in question appeared to be clickbait that led readers to well over 30 pages that probably could have just been one page. 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 is no indication that Katy Perry was 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' The ad in question appeared to be clickbait that led readers to well over 30 pages that probably could have just been one page. 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. | [
"12161-proof-02-GettyImages-1052488396-scaled-e1618856757525.jpg"
] |
Katy Perry was banned for life from 'Saturday Night Live. | Contradiction | The iconic NBC sketch comedy series 'Saturday Night Live' has aired new episodes every year since 1975. In 2021, an 'SNL' episode from 2010 was the subject of an online advertisement that claimed Katy Perry had been 'banned for life' from the show. It appeared on a number of local news websites that displayed ads from the Outbrain advertising network. The picture in the ad showed the singer and songwriter wearing a top that featured Elmo from 'Sesame Street.' In some cases, the sponsored ad was mixed in with headlines for real news stories. The questionable 'SNL' ad appeared alongside real news stories. Readers who clicked the ad were met with a lengthy slideshow article from the website Definition.org. Instead of something similar to the ad such as 'This Is Why Katy Perry Was Banned from 'SNL,'' the headline was a broader story than originally teased: 'SNL Controversies Through the Years.' For well over 40 years, 'Saturday Night Live' has been a staple of American television. The series has produced a roster of iconic stars and pop culture moments that are pretty much no other television show can replicate. However, 'SNL' has also produced a large number of famous controversies that have led to public condemnations and firings. The worst of these 'SNL' controversies have even led to lifetime bans. Some 'SNL' controversies were caused by guest hosts or musicians who used the show's platform to try and spread a message. of their own, while others involved full-time 'SNL' cast members torpedoed their own careers. Perry did not appear until the last page of the slideshow story: Page 32. Katy Perry was playing the role of a children's library volunteer who got in trouble for her inappropriate clothes. The rest of the skit was carried heavily by the Bronx Beat ladies played by Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler, who of course were the source of the comedy in the act. But then Maya called attention to the obvious... 'Who cares if kids are looking at boobs?'. 'Boobs feed babies...I turned on CSI the other night, and there's a dead guy with a worm in his eye. But we can't look at the tops of boobs?' However, the article mentioned nothing about Perry being 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' Further, we found zero news articles that published anything of the sort. The picture of Perry was from the 2010 sketch 'Bronx Beat: Maureen Diccico.' The episode followed news that 'Sesame Street' had 'pulled' a duet video featuring Perry and Elmo after it 'drew complaints from parents due to the pop star's controversial attire.' In sum, there is no indication that Katy Perry was 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' The ad in question appeared to be clickbait that led readers to well over 30 pages that probably could have just been one page. 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 is no indication that Katy Perry was 'banned for life' from 'SNL.' The ad in question appeared to be clickbait that led readers to well over 30 pages that probably could have just been one page. 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. | [
"12161-proof-02-GettyImages-1052488396-scaled-e1618856757525.jpg"
] |
Heath Ledger's Joker is hidden in a restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight. | Contradiction | On June 20, 2021, the @raidersofthelostpodcast TikTok channel released a video that claims Heath Ledger's Joker is hidden in an early restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' @raidersofthelostpodcast MIND BLOWN #raidersofthelostpodcast #PrimeDayDealsDance #TubiTaughtMe #joker #thejoker #batman #dceu #movie #film #heathledger #actor ♬ A Dark Knight - Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard In the video, the Raiders of the Lost Podcast co-host said that The Joker's presence showed his character's 'brilliance.' During the [restaurant] dinner scene in 'The Dark Knight,' Heath Ledger is actually hidden in the background. I'm going to rewind to the beginning of the scene so I can show you what I'm talking about. So let's go to the beginning. Now watch this. So, Rachel and Harvey Dent sit down for dinner, right? Now, look at this right here. That is clearly Heath Ledger sitting at the table next to them. And once again, here's Harvey Dent and there's The Joker. Heath Ledger's sitting right behind him, showing that The Joker has been listening to the conversation the entire time, showing the brilliance of his character. This is a real thing that Christopher Nolan confirmed doing. This is not a real thing and Nolan, the film's director, did not confirm doing it. The actor in the restaurant scene with long hair on the right side of the frame is not Ledger: If this is The Joker without makeup, his scars magically disappeared. (Courtesy: Warner Bros. Pictures) A closer look: Not a match. (Courtesy: Warner Bros. Pictures) In the scene, Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes sit down at a table before Bruce Wayne arrives. When Wayne shows up with his date, Dent and Dawes then move to other chairs. This part is not shown in the TikTok video and explains why the extra with long hair appears to be at two tables. We looked to see if the Raiders of the Lost Podcast was satirical or if it was a kind of prank or trolling TikTok channel but did not find any such disclaimers. The rumor about Ledger's purported appearance in the restaurant scene has appeared on Reddit in the past so often that one commenter noted: 'No matter how many times this is posted, its still not going to be Ledge.' 'This was proven to be BS a decade ago,' another Reddit commenter posted. 'Maybe it is Heath Ledgers stunt double? That's not uncommon,' a commenter added. 'Looks more like Tom Hiddleston to me,' another person remarked. 'Holy shit this is one of the best movie details I have seen yet,' read the lowest-rated comment in the entire thread. Ledger ended up winning a best supporting actor Oscar for the role, but only after his tragic passing that occurred before the film released. In sum, Ledger's Joker was not hidden in the restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' | In sum, Ledger's Joker was not hidden in the restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' | [
"12173-proof-02-not-heath-ledger-dark-knight-tiktok.jpg",
"12173-proof-04-ledger-purported-stunt-double-reddit.jpg",
"12173-proof-11-not-heath-ledger-dark-knight.jpg"
] |
Heath Ledger's Joker is hidden in a restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight. | Contradiction | On June 20, 2021, the @raidersofthelostpodcast TikTok channel released a video that claims Heath Ledger's Joker is hidden in an early restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' @raidersofthelostpodcast MIND BLOWN #raidersofthelostpodcast #PrimeDayDealsDance #TubiTaughtMe #joker #thejoker #batman #dceu #movie #film #heathledger #actor ♬ A Dark Knight - Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard In the video, the Raiders of the Lost Podcast co-host said that The Joker's presence showed his character's 'brilliance.' During the [restaurant] dinner scene in 'The Dark Knight,' Heath Ledger is actually hidden in the background. I'm going to rewind to the beginning of the scene so I can show you what I'm talking about. So let's go to the beginning. Now watch this. So, Rachel and Harvey Dent sit down for dinner, right? Now, look at this right here. That is clearly Heath Ledger sitting at the table next to them. And once again, here's Harvey Dent and there's The Joker. Heath Ledger's sitting right behind him, showing that The Joker has been listening to the conversation the entire time, showing the brilliance of his character. This is a real thing that Christopher Nolan confirmed doing. This is not a real thing and Nolan, the film's director, did not confirm doing it. The actor in the restaurant scene with long hair on the right side of the frame is not Ledger: If this is The Joker without makeup, his scars magically disappeared. (Courtesy: Warner Bros. Pictures) A closer look: Not a match. (Courtesy: Warner Bros. Pictures) In the scene, Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes sit down at a table before Bruce Wayne arrives. When Wayne shows up with his date, Dent and Dawes then move to other chairs. This part is not shown in the TikTok video and explains why the extra with long hair appears to be at two tables. We looked to see if the Raiders of the Lost Podcast was satirical or if it was a kind of prank or trolling TikTok channel but did not find any such disclaimers. The rumor about Ledger's purported appearance in the restaurant scene has appeared on Reddit in the past so often that one commenter noted: 'No matter how many times this is posted, its still not going to be Ledge.' 'This was proven to be BS a decade ago,' another Reddit commenter posted. 'Maybe it is Heath Ledgers stunt double? That's not uncommon,' a commenter added. 'Looks more like Tom Hiddleston to me,' another person remarked. 'Holy shit this is one of the best movie details I have seen yet,' read the lowest-rated comment in the entire thread. Ledger ended up winning a best supporting actor Oscar for the role, but only after his tragic passing that occurred before the film released. In sum, Ledger's Joker was not hidden in the restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' | In sum, Ledger's Joker was not hidden in the restaurant scene in 'The Dark Knight.' | [
"12173-proof-02-not-heath-ledger-dark-knight-tiktok.jpg",
"12173-proof-04-ledger-purported-stunt-double-reddit.jpg",
"12173-proof-11-not-heath-ledger-dark-knight.jpg"
] |
Thirty-three Florida labs were busted for 'cooking the books' or tampering with data after not reporting negative COVID-19 test results between March and July 2020. | 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 July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that Florida labs were intentionally tampering with data by failing to report negative COVID-19 test results, making the coronavirus pandemic appear much worse in the southern state. The claims followed an investigation conducted by Orlando affiliate station Fox 35, which analyzed COVID-19 testing and case data collected between March 16, 2020, when testing began, and July 13, 2020, by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). Of the hundreds of labs analyzed, many were shown to have reported very high positivity rates for COVID-19. The accusations of tampering came as many health officials and local leaders came under criticism for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic and testing responses. Snopes dug through the 49-page report line-by-line and found that at least 45 laboratories that tested for COVID-19 did not report negative test results between March and July 2020 and instead showed 100% positivity, while dozens of others reported 90% positivity and higher. More than 300 labs did report negative test results, clocking percentage rates much lower than 100%. The table below shows labs that tested 40 or more people and reported 100% positivity, and failed to report negative test results: Source: Florida Department of Health Public and private testing facilities are required to report their results to the DOH, which then releases a daily report covering surveillance data for every county in the state. DOH confirmed to Snopes that a number of testing labs did not report negative test results and issued the following statement in an email sent July 15, 2020: All COVID-19 cases are confirmed through diagnostic and antigen testing and then reported to the state by the labs performing the testing. Private and public laboratories are required to report positive and negative test results to the state immediately. In recent days, the Florida Department of Health noticed that some smaller, private labs weren't reporting negative test result data to the state. The Department immediately began working with those labs to ensure that all results were being reported in order to provide comprehensive and transparent data. As the state continues to receive results from various labs, the Department will continue educating these labs on proper protocol for reporting COVID-19 test results. The department did not respond to follow-up questions about whether this lack of reporting could have skewed data on total case counts. It is not yet determined why these smaller labs did not report negative cases, and the department did not answer approximately how many negative test results were unreported. We will provide an update once these questions are answered. Labs Snopes spoke to claimed there were discrepancies and changes in DOH's data reporting requirements. In an email sent to Snopes, Pancare of Florida President R. Michael Hill said that the DOH 'misdirected their data collection process as an inaccuracy on PanCare's part.' The testing lab said that it uses three methods for testing including one that detects viral antigens, which the DOH reportedly said it would not include 'into the county or state numbers.' On July 1, DOH implemented an update to its electronic reporting process to 'report all patient-specific results' daily and began integrating previously reported data from PanCare as of July 16. Lab24 in Miami confirmed this statement when it told the Orlando Sun-Sentinel that it had tested around 10,000 people in Florida but that the state required that private labs only notify health officials of positive results. Snopes contacted Lab24 but did not receive a response at the time of publication. 'In short, yes the COVID-19 data for the State of Florida is skewed, PanCare has conducted over 6,900 antibody tests, and over 16,000 antigen tests that have not been accurately reported by the Florida Department of Health because they refused to accept the results of both of these FDA-EUA approved tests at the time they were administered,' wrote Hill. Lee Memorial Hospital Lab told Snopes that it had accurately reported both negative and positive test results but that a hospital can have more than one entry in the DOH database. For example, results from Lee Memorial Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital Lab come from the same testing facility yet each reported different rates. Lee Memorial Hospital reported an 18% positivity rate of 2,925 tests conducted while Lee Memorial Hospital Lab reported 100% positivity of 405 COVID-19 tests conducted. When combined, the overall positive results from the two hospitals were between 15 and 25%. 'All positive results are immediately faxed to the department. This allows the Department of Health to start their contact trace investigation as quickly as possible,' wrote Lee Health Communications Supervisor Jonathon Little in an email. 'All results, both positive and negative, are sent electronically each day. The department removes duplicate tests to ensure no results are counted twice.' Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did not respond to our requests for comment and a staffer instead deferred to the DOH via email. Accurate reporting of both negative and positive rates informs local outbreak guidance and can be used to indicate community spread, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Johns Hopkins University of Medicine notes that the rate of positivity provides insight into whether a community is doing enough testing; higher rates indicate only the sickest are being tested while lower positivity suggests that a community may be including asymptomatic patients or those with milder symptoms in its testing. Testing is limited and, in many places, only provided to patients who are symptomatic. Researchers with the Oregon State University attempted to combat this form of selection bias - whereby only the sickest patients are tested for the SARS-CoV-2 infection - through its TRACE-COVID-19 project testing all members of a given community. Preliminary results suggest that about 1-in-1,000 people test positive for the virus, or about .1 percent of the population. The DOH COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard reported that as of July 20, more than 3 million people in Florida have been tested with about 11.7% overall positive across the state. The target range is below 10%. Misreporting negative tests does not change the number of total cases diagnosed, those that are currently active, or the number of deaths related to COVID-19. As of July 20, nearly 356,000 Florida residents had tested positive for the virus. At least 5,072 people in Florida have died in relation to COVID-19. | In short, yes the COVID-19 data for the State of Florida is skewed, PanCare has conducted over 6,900 antibody tests, and over 16,000 antigen tests that have not been accurately reported by the Florida Department of Health because they refused to accept the results of both of these FDA-EUA approved tests at the time they were administered,' wrote Hill. Lee Memorial Hospital Lab told Snopes that it had accurately reported both negative and positive test results but that a hospital can have more than one entry in the DOH database. For example, results from Lee Memorial Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital Lab come from the same testing facility yet each reported different rates. Lee Memorial Hospital reported an 18% positivity rate of 2,925 tests conducted while Lee Memorial Hospital Lab reported 100% positivity of 405 COVID-19 tests conducted. When combined, the overall positive results from the two hospitals were between 15 and 25%. 'All positive results are immediately faxed to the department. This allows the Department of Health to start their contact trace investigation as quickly as possible,' wrote Lee Health Communications Supervisor Jonathon Little in an email. 'All results, both positive and negative, are sent electronically each day. The department removes duplicate tests to ensure no results are counted twice.' Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did not respond to our requests for comment and a staffer instead deferred to the DOH via email. Accurate reporting of both negative and positive rates informs local outbreak guidance and can be used to indicate community spread, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Johns Hopkins University of Medicine notes that the rate of positivity provides insight into whether a community is doing enough testing; higher rates indicate only the sickest are being tested while lower positivity suggests that a community may be including asymptomatic patients or those with milder symptoms in its testing. Testing is limited and, in many places, only provided to patients who are symptomatic. Researchers with the Oregon State University attempted to combat this form of selection bias - whereby only the sickest patients are tested for the SARS-CoV-2 infection - through its TRACE-COVID-19 project testing all members of a given community. Preliminary results suggest that about 1-in-1,000 people test positive for the virus, or about .1 percent of the population. The DOH COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard reported that as of July 20, more than 3 million people in Florida have been tested with about 11.7% overall positive across the state. The target range is below 10%. Misreporting negative tests does not change the number of total cases diagnosed, those that are currently active, or the number of deaths related to COVID-19. As of July 20, nearly 356,000 Florida residents had tested positive for the virus. At least 5,072 people in Florida have died in relation to COVID-19. | [
"12185-proof-07-test-kit.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows quarterback Joe Namath kneeling during the national anthem in the 1970s. | Contradiction | On 10 February 2019, the Facebook page 'Friends of Farrakhan' posted an old photograph that supposedly showed NFL quarterback Joe Namath's kneeling during a pre-game performance of the national anthem. A piece of text overlaid on the image claimed that, 'All the players used to kneel for the National Anthem.' And the caption provided by the Facebook page, 'White History 101,' insinuated that kneeling during the 'Star-Spangled Banner' wasn't an issue until a black quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, picked up the practice in 2016 in protest of police brutality and racial inequality: This is a genuine photograph of Namath's kneeling on the sidelines of a football field. However, this picture has nothing to do with the national anthem, patriotism, or protesting. This photograph was taken on 11 November 1973 and shows Namath and Al Woodall on the sidelines during the third quarter of the New York Jets game against the New England Patriots. The photograph was captured by Barton Silverman of the New York Times and is available via the 'Lively Morgue' Tumblr page, a website set up by the New York Times to showcase their archive of photographs: Nov. 11, 1973: 'Joe Namath, in furs, and Al Woodall, who came out of yesterday's game with an injured elbow.' Namath stood on the sidelines as his team played, a shoulder injury keeping him out of uniform. The Jets won the game without him. Victories, the reporter wrote, 'come so infrequently these days that each one should be treated with awe and reverence.' Photo: Barton Silverman/The New York Times The Lively Morgue also provided a glimpse at the back of this image, which showed various notes, time stamps, and newspaper clippings. Although it is partly obscured by a newspaper clipping, you can see that the original caption for the image noted that this photograph was taken during the 3rd quarter (not during the national anthem) after Woodall was taken out of the game due to an injury: A contemporary news report regarding this 11 November 1973 football game confirmed that Woodall started the game in place of an injured Namath but left the game sometime during the second quarter due to an injured elbow. As this image shows the two injured quarterbacks on the sidelines, it's clear that this image was taken long after the pre-game ceremonies. In short, this photograph does not show Namath's kneeling during the anthem but rather an innocuous moment in which two injured quarterbacks watched their teammates play a football game. Namath has offered his two cents on Kaepernick's kneeling protest. Namath appeared on Fox & Friends in October 2017 and said he agreed with the motivation behind the protests, in which players kneel during the anthem, but added that owners had the right to object to their players' actions: 'Going back to what Colin Kaepernick initially did, it was to point out some injustice that's being done to the black race,' Namath said, 'some of these dash cams and shootings that were done to unarmed people. He was reaching out to try to get it more investigated. So that's where this oppression thing comes in.' Namath's reference to oppression is a response to Mike Ditka's assessment that there hasn't been oppression in this country 'in the last 100 years.' At the end of the segment, Namath also encouraged Ditka to 'look up the definition of oppression.' [...] While Namath may support the message behind the protest and the players' method of expression, he believes NFL owners have the right to tell players where they are and aren't allowed to protest. 'Ownership has ownership,' Namath explained. 'If somebody starts walking through here carrying a sign, what are the powers that be at Fox going to say to you? 'Excuse me. Go do that somewhere else. Don't do it in the workplace.'' | In short, this photograph does not show Namath's kneeling during the anthem but rather an innocuous moment in which two injured quarterbacks watched their teammates play a football game. Namath has offered his two cents on Kaepernick's kneeling protest. Namath appeared on Fox & Friends in October 2017 and said he agreed with the motivation behind the protests, in which players kneel during the anthem, but added that owners had the right to object to their players' actions: 'Going back to what Colin Kaepernick initially did, it was to point out some injustice that's being done to the black race,' Namath said, 'some of these dash cams and shootings that were done to unarmed people. He was reaching out to try to get it more investigated. So that's where this oppression thing comes in.' Namath's reference to oppression is a response to Mike Ditka's assessment that there hasn't been oppression in this country 'in the last 100 years.' At the end of the segment, Namath also encouraged Ditka to 'look up the definition of oppression.' [...] While Namath may support the message behind the protest and the players' method of expression, he believes NFL owners have the right to tell players where they are and aren't allowed to protest. 'Ownership has ownership,' Namath explained. 'If somebody starts walking through here carrying a sign, what are the powers that be at Fox going to say to you? 'Excuse me. Go do that somewhere else. Don't do it in the workplace.'' | [
"12213-proof-05-namoth-kneeling.jpg",
"12213-proof-09-joe-namath-feature.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows quarterback Joe Namath kneeling during the national anthem in the 1970s. | Contradiction | On 10 February 2019, the Facebook page 'Friends of Farrakhan' posted an old photograph that supposedly showed NFL quarterback Joe Namath's kneeling during a pre-game performance of the national anthem. A piece of text overlaid on the image claimed that, 'All the players used to kneel for the National Anthem.' And the caption provided by the Facebook page, 'White History 101,' insinuated that kneeling during the 'Star-Spangled Banner' wasn't an issue until a black quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, picked up the practice in 2016 in protest of police brutality and racial inequality: This is a genuine photograph of Namath's kneeling on the sidelines of a football field. However, this picture has nothing to do with the national anthem, patriotism, or protesting. This photograph was taken on 11 November 1973 and shows Namath and Al Woodall on the sidelines during the third quarter of the New York Jets game against the New England Patriots. The photograph was captured by Barton Silverman of the New York Times and is available via the 'Lively Morgue' Tumblr page, a website set up by the New York Times to showcase their archive of photographs: Nov. 11, 1973: 'Joe Namath, in furs, and Al Woodall, who came out of yesterday's game with an injured elbow.' Namath stood on the sidelines as his team played, a shoulder injury keeping him out of uniform. The Jets won the game without him. Victories, the reporter wrote, 'come so infrequently these days that each one should be treated with awe and reverence.' Photo: Barton Silverman/The New York Times The Lively Morgue also provided a glimpse at the back of this image, which showed various notes, time stamps, and newspaper clippings. Although it is partly obscured by a newspaper clipping, you can see that the original caption for the image noted that this photograph was taken during the 3rd quarter (not during the national anthem) after Woodall was taken out of the game due to an injury: A contemporary news report regarding this 11 November 1973 football game confirmed that Woodall started the game in place of an injured Namath but left the game sometime during the second quarter due to an injured elbow. As this image shows the two injured quarterbacks on the sidelines, it's clear that this image was taken long after the pre-game ceremonies. In short, this photograph does not show Namath's kneeling during the anthem but rather an innocuous moment in which two injured quarterbacks watched their teammates play a football game. Namath has offered his two cents on Kaepernick's kneeling protest. Namath appeared on Fox & Friends in October 2017 and said he agreed with the motivation behind the protests, in which players kneel during the anthem, but added that owners had the right to object to their players' actions: 'Going back to what Colin Kaepernick initially did, it was to point out some injustice that's being done to the black race,' Namath said, 'some of these dash cams and shootings that were done to unarmed people. He was reaching out to try to get it more investigated. So that's where this oppression thing comes in.' Namath's reference to oppression is a response to Mike Ditka's assessment that there hasn't been oppression in this country 'in the last 100 years.' At the end of the segment, Namath also encouraged Ditka to 'look up the definition of oppression.' [...] While Namath may support the message behind the protest and the players' method of expression, he believes NFL owners have the right to tell players where they are and aren't allowed to protest. 'Ownership has ownership,' Namath explained. 'If somebody starts walking through here carrying a sign, what are the powers that be at Fox going to say to you? 'Excuse me. Go do that somewhere else. Don't do it in the workplace.'' | In short, this photograph does not show Namath's kneeling during the anthem but rather an innocuous moment in which two injured quarterbacks watched their teammates play a football game. Namath has offered his two cents on Kaepernick's kneeling protest. Namath appeared on Fox & Friends in October 2017 and said he agreed with the motivation behind the protests, in which players kneel during the anthem, but added that owners had the right to object to their players' actions: 'Going back to what Colin Kaepernick initially did, it was to point out some injustice that's being done to the black race,' Namath said, 'some of these dash cams and shootings that were done to unarmed people. He was reaching out to try to get it more investigated. So that's where this oppression thing comes in.' Namath's reference to oppression is a response to Mike Ditka's assessment that there hasn't been oppression in this country 'in the last 100 years.' At the end of the segment, Namath also encouraged Ditka to 'look up the definition of oppression.' [...] While Namath may support the message behind the protest and the players' method of expression, he believes NFL owners have the right to tell players where they are and aren't allowed to protest. 'Ownership has ownership,' Namath explained. 'If somebody starts walking through here carrying a sign, what are the powers that be at Fox going to say to you? 'Excuse me. Go do that somewhere else. Don't do it in the workplace.'' | [
"12213-proof-05-namoth-kneeling.jpg",
"12213-proof-09-joe-namath-feature.jpg"
] |
A Hawaii state official recently came forward with proof that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was not legitimate. | Contradiction | In mid-August 2015, the web site Patriot Newswire published an article titled 'WND: Former Hawaii Official Swears There's No Obama Birth Certificate,' aggregated by Mr. Conservative in a post titled 'Hawaii Officials Drop Bombshell About Obama's Birth Certificate.' (Both addressed long-debunked rumors known broadly as birther claims.) The latter claimed that shocking new information had surfaced about the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate via an election clerk in the state of Hawaii: Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams recently signed an affidavit swearing that his supervisors told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in the state of Hawaii. According to Patriot Newswire, neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu have any record of Obama being born at their hospitals. Both articles cited the web site World Net Daily as the source of claims about former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams and President Obama's birth certificate: WND has long been flogging discredited birther claims (including a particularly popular and poorly-vetted thread involving the President and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Both also linked to the article from which the assertions were entirely sourced, titled 'Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate' (subtitled 'Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent') and published on 24 January 2011. (No reason was provided by either website about why old WND claims were presented as novel or some sort of 'bombshell' in August 2015, more than four years after their initial appearance.) The original WND article opened by introducing Tim Adams, who claimed to have heard rumors from unspecified parties that unspecified parties sought to verify Obama's 'long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate': Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. 'During the course of my employment,' Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), 'I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.' 'Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,' Adams' affidavit reads, 'and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.' By whom the requests were made, what number of requests constituted 'many,' and by what means Adams determined that no record of that nature existed was not elaborated upon. Adams asserted in a phone interview with WND it was 'common knowledge among election officials' that the record was both sought after and impossible to locate, perplexingly adding that the document in question would have rested not with elections officials, but the Department of Health. Adams' claims weren't new when WND presented them in January 2011, either: Adams discussed them with the 'unapologetically pro-White' radio program The Political Cesspool in a video published to YouTube in July 2010 (the footage prominently displays logos from the notorious white supremacist/neo-Nazi internet forum Stormfront): In the clip, Adams participated in a phone conversation with host James Edwards. As in subsequent comments Adams made to WND, his assertions hinged upon rumors he claimed to have heard during the course of his temporary employment as an elections clerk in the county of Honolulu (rather than any substantive information supporting his assertions). Adams (who offered his 'professional opinion' that Obama was not born in the United States) rattled off a list of databases to which he purportedly had access during his temporary employment of unstated duration; none of those databases included the Department of Health with whom the record would have been located: I was Chief elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu on temporary contract. I ran an office that verified voter eligibility and had a staff of about 50 people. When this question came up, I had access to all the usual government databases that people had to verify identity, NCIS, Social Security, all sorts of other things that we use on average voters. There were two people higher than me in our office, who were under the City Clerk of Honolulu, and the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate. It was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. No effort was made during those separate interviews to differentiate the procedural differences in determining voter eligibility versus obtaining a birth certificate for any individual in or outside the scope of election clerk duties. Adams never clarified why his office (primarily tasked with matters of voting and election administration in the county of Honolulu) might have ever been involved with or otherwise knowledgeable on a purported search for a Department of Health record pertaining to a candidate in a national election. Overall, Adams' relevance to the larger controversy over Obama's eligibility was not clear in 2010 (nor was it in 2015). Adams wasn't the only party presenting partial, unexplained, or misrepresented 'evidence.' WND's entire 2011 'bombshell' was predicated on an affidavit (a sworn written statement certified by a notary public) Adams signed attesting to his claims. But no explanation for the necessity of an affidavit was provided; and it appeared that the document was generated solely for the purpose of implying the claims made in the article were credible. The affidavit itself involved little additional information above and beyond what Adams had shakily claimed in both interviews (adding the dates of his employment, May 2008 through September 2008). In it, Adams attested to rumors he heard about President Obama's birth certificate in the course of his duties processing absentee ballots as a temporary employee in Honolulu: By March 2011, Adams' claims evolved significantly. Whereas his affidavit stated in its final point that he was ordered not to investigate the matter of Obama's birth certificate, he later claimed he was charged with doing so in the course of his temporary employment processing absentee ballots. (He did, however, backpedal on claims that he had access to most databases that would hold that sort of information, saying instead that verification data was provided by various agencies outside the Board of Elections via inquiries.): Well, when the question about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii came up, our office - what we do is we verify voter identification. We also verify the identity of the candidates that go on the state ballot. And so the lady that I report to, who we mentioned earlier, that was part of their responsibility. They had to verify the identity of the people who go on the state ballot. So when the questions came up, we made inquiries, and the only thing we got back was, is, there are no documents. ... from those databases we couldn't, but what happens is is that when they ask us to verify the identity of the candidate that we have to go to the people who have the records, the Department of Health, Kapiolani Hospital, Queens Hospital, and the answer we got back from them was they don't have the records. ... it was our job. It's what we did. In some states the secretary of state would have done it directly in their office, I suppose, but in Hawaii the identities are verified through the Office of Elections We had local candidates who would bring in birth certificates and passports and other documents to prove their identity. That was normal.. Adams wasn't alone in contradicting statements about the scope of duties for the Honolulu City Clerk's Elections Division, as their official web site made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the things he later claimed he did during the course of his employment in that capacity: Conducting elections involves: registering voters, maintaining the voter registration database on behalf of the four counties and the State of Hawaii, maintaining address and district data; checking signatures on city candidate/initiative petitions; issuing candidate nomination papers and filings; issuing and mailing absentee ballots; accepting, accounting for, and processing returned ballots; operating early voting locations; The Office of the City Clerk also accepts financial disclosure filings of candidates and City employees and provides clerical support to the Honolulu City Council. In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | [
"12278-proof-01-VGNOedj.jpg",
"12278-proof-03-Jrx3g4o.jpg"
] |
A Hawaii state official recently came forward with proof that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was not legitimate. | Contradiction | In mid-August 2015, the web site Patriot Newswire published an article titled 'WND: Former Hawaii Official Swears There's No Obama Birth Certificate,' aggregated by Mr. Conservative in a post titled 'Hawaii Officials Drop Bombshell About Obama's Birth Certificate.' (Both addressed long-debunked rumors known broadly as birther claims.) The latter claimed that shocking new information had surfaced about the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate via an election clerk in the state of Hawaii: Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams recently signed an affidavit swearing that his supervisors told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in the state of Hawaii. According to Patriot Newswire, neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu have any record of Obama being born at their hospitals. Both articles cited the web site World Net Daily as the source of claims about former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams and President Obama's birth certificate: WND has long been flogging discredited birther claims (including a particularly popular and poorly-vetted thread involving the President and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Both also linked to the article from which the assertions were entirely sourced, titled 'Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate' (subtitled 'Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent') and published on 24 January 2011. (No reason was provided by either website about why old WND claims were presented as novel or some sort of 'bombshell' in August 2015, more than four years after their initial appearance.) The original WND article opened by introducing Tim Adams, who claimed to have heard rumors from unspecified parties that unspecified parties sought to verify Obama's 'long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate': Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. 'During the course of my employment,' Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), 'I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.' 'Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,' Adams' affidavit reads, 'and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.' By whom the requests were made, what number of requests constituted 'many,' and by what means Adams determined that no record of that nature existed was not elaborated upon. Adams asserted in a phone interview with WND it was 'common knowledge among election officials' that the record was both sought after and impossible to locate, perplexingly adding that the document in question would have rested not with elections officials, but the Department of Health. Adams' claims weren't new when WND presented them in January 2011, either: Adams discussed them with the 'unapologetically pro-White' radio program The Political Cesspool in a video published to YouTube in July 2010 (the footage prominently displays logos from the notorious white supremacist/neo-Nazi internet forum Stormfront): In the clip, Adams participated in a phone conversation with host James Edwards. As in subsequent comments Adams made to WND, his assertions hinged upon rumors he claimed to have heard during the course of his temporary employment as an elections clerk in the county of Honolulu (rather than any substantive information supporting his assertions). Adams (who offered his 'professional opinion' that Obama was not born in the United States) rattled off a list of databases to which he purportedly had access during his temporary employment of unstated duration; none of those databases included the Department of Health with whom the record would have been located: I was Chief elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu on temporary contract. I ran an office that verified voter eligibility and had a staff of about 50 people. When this question came up, I had access to all the usual government databases that people had to verify identity, NCIS, Social Security, all sorts of other things that we use on average voters. There were two people higher than me in our office, who were under the City Clerk of Honolulu, and the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate. It was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. No effort was made during those separate interviews to differentiate the procedural differences in determining voter eligibility versus obtaining a birth certificate for any individual in or outside the scope of election clerk duties. Adams never clarified why his office (primarily tasked with matters of voting and election administration in the county of Honolulu) might have ever been involved with or otherwise knowledgeable on a purported search for a Department of Health record pertaining to a candidate in a national election. Overall, Adams' relevance to the larger controversy over Obama's eligibility was not clear in 2010 (nor was it in 2015). Adams wasn't the only party presenting partial, unexplained, or misrepresented 'evidence.' WND's entire 2011 'bombshell' was predicated on an affidavit (a sworn written statement certified by a notary public) Adams signed attesting to his claims. But no explanation for the necessity of an affidavit was provided; and it appeared that the document was generated solely for the purpose of implying the claims made in the article were credible. The affidavit itself involved little additional information above and beyond what Adams had shakily claimed in both interviews (adding the dates of his employment, May 2008 through September 2008). In it, Adams attested to rumors he heard about President Obama's birth certificate in the course of his duties processing absentee ballots as a temporary employee in Honolulu: By March 2011, Adams' claims evolved significantly. Whereas his affidavit stated in its final point that he was ordered not to investigate the matter of Obama's birth certificate, he later claimed he was charged with doing so in the course of his temporary employment processing absentee ballots. (He did, however, backpedal on claims that he had access to most databases that would hold that sort of information, saying instead that verification data was provided by various agencies outside the Board of Elections via inquiries.): Well, when the question about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii came up, our office - what we do is we verify voter identification. We also verify the identity of the candidates that go on the state ballot. And so the lady that I report to, who we mentioned earlier, that was part of their responsibility. They had to verify the identity of the people who go on the state ballot. So when the questions came up, we made inquiries, and the only thing we got back was, is, there are no documents. ... from those databases we couldn't, but what happens is is that when they ask us to verify the identity of the candidate that we have to go to the people who have the records, the Department of Health, Kapiolani Hospital, Queens Hospital, and the answer we got back from them was they don't have the records. ... it was our job. It's what we did. In some states the secretary of state would have done it directly in their office, I suppose, but in Hawaii the identities are verified through the Office of Elections We had local candidates who would bring in birth certificates and passports and other documents to prove their identity. That was normal.. Adams wasn't alone in contradicting statements about the scope of duties for the Honolulu City Clerk's Elections Division, as their official web site made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the things he later claimed he did during the course of his employment in that capacity: Conducting elections involves: registering voters, maintaining the voter registration database on behalf of the four counties and the State of Hawaii, maintaining address and district data; checking signatures on city candidate/initiative petitions; issuing candidate nomination papers and filings; issuing and mailing absentee ballots; accepting, accounting for, and processing returned ballots; operating early voting locations; The Office of the City Clerk also accepts financial disclosure filings of candidates and City employees and provides clerical support to the Honolulu City Council. In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | [
"12278-proof-01-VGNOedj.jpg",
"12278-proof-03-Jrx3g4o.jpg"
] |
A Hawaii state official recently came forward with proof that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was not legitimate. | Contradiction | In mid-August 2015, the web site Patriot Newswire published an article titled 'WND: Former Hawaii Official Swears There's No Obama Birth Certificate,' aggregated by Mr. Conservative in a post titled 'Hawaii Officials Drop Bombshell About Obama's Birth Certificate.' (Both addressed long-debunked rumors known broadly as birther claims.) The latter claimed that shocking new information had surfaced about the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate via an election clerk in the state of Hawaii: Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams recently signed an affidavit swearing that his supervisors told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in the state of Hawaii. According to Patriot Newswire, neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu have any record of Obama being born at their hospitals. Both articles cited the web site World Net Daily as the source of claims about former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams and President Obama's birth certificate: WND has long been flogging discredited birther claims (including a particularly popular and poorly-vetted thread involving the President and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Both also linked to the article from which the assertions were entirely sourced, titled 'Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate' (subtitled 'Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent') and published on 24 January 2011. (No reason was provided by either website about why old WND claims were presented as novel or some sort of 'bombshell' in August 2015, more than four years after their initial appearance.) The original WND article opened by introducing Tim Adams, who claimed to have heard rumors from unspecified parties that unspecified parties sought to verify Obama's 'long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate': Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. 'During the course of my employment,' Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), 'I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.' 'Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,' Adams' affidavit reads, 'and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.' By whom the requests were made, what number of requests constituted 'many,' and by what means Adams determined that no record of that nature existed was not elaborated upon. Adams asserted in a phone interview with WND it was 'common knowledge among election officials' that the record was both sought after and impossible to locate, perplexingly adding that the document in question would have rested not with elections officials, but the Department of Health. Adams' claims weren't new when WND presented them in January 2011, either: Adams discussed them with the 'unapologetically pro-White' radio program The Political Cesspool in a video published to YouTube in July 2010 (the footage prominently displays logos from the notorious white supremacist/neo-Nazi internet forum Stormfront): In the clip, Adams participated in a phone conversation with host James Edwards. As in subsequent comments Adams made to WND, his assertions hinged upon rumors he claimed to have heard during the course of his temporary employment as an elections clerk in the county of Honolulu (rather than any substantive information supporting his assertions). Adams (who offered his 'professional opinion' that Obama was not born in the United States) rattled off a list of databases to which he purportedly had access during his temporary employment of unstated duration; none of those databases included the Department of Health with whom the record would have been located: I was Chief elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu on temporary contract. I ran an office that verified voter eligibility and had a staff of about 50 people. When this question came up, I had access to all the usual government databases that people had to verify identity, NCIS, Social Security, all sorts of other things that we use on average voters. There were two people higher than me in our office, who were under the City Clerk of Honolulu, and the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate. It was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. No effort was made during those separate interviews to differentiate the procedural differences in determining voter eligibility versus obtaining a birth certificate for any individual in or outside the scope of election clerk duties. Adams never clarified why his office (primarily tasked with matters of voting and election administration in the county of Honolulu) might have ever been involved with or otherwise knowledgeable on a purported search for a Department of Health record pertaining to a candidate in a national election. Overall, Adams' relevance to the larger controversy over Obama's eligibility was not clear in 2010 (nor was it in 2015). Adams wasn't the only party presenting partial, unexplained, or misrepresented 'evidence.' WND's entire 2011 'bombshell' was predicated on an affidavit (a sworn written statement certified by a notary public) Adams signed attesting to his claims. But no explanation for the necessity of an affidavit was provided; and it appeared that the document was generated solely for the purpose of implying the claims made in the article were credible. The affidavit itself involved little additional information above and beyond what Adams had shakily claimed in both interviews (adding the dates of his employment, May 2008 through September 2008). In it, Adams attested to rumors he heard about President Obama's birth certificate in the course of his duties processing absentee ballots as a temporary employee in Honolulu: By March 2011, Adams' claims evolved significantly. Whereas his affidavit stated in its final point that he was ordered not to investigate the matter of Obama's birth certificate, he later claimed he was charged with doing so in the course of his temporary employment processing absentee ballots. (He did, however, backpedal on claims that he had access to most databases that would hold that sort of information, saying instead that verification data was provided by various agencies outside the Board of Elections via inquiries.): Well, when the question about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii came up, our office - what we do is we verify voter identification. We also verify the identity of the candidates that go on the state ballot. And so the lady that I report to, who we mentioned earlier, that was part of their responsibility. They had to verify the identity of the people who go on the state ballot. So when the questions came up, we made inquiries, and the only thing we got back was, is, there are no documents. ... from those databases we couldn't, but what happens is is that when they ask us to verify the identity of the candidate that we have to go to the people who have the records, the Department of Health, Kapiolani Hospital, Queens Hospital, and the answer we got back from them was they don't have the records. ... it was our job. It's what we did. In some states the secretary of state would have done it directly in their office, I suppose, but in Hawaii the identities are verified through the Office of Elections We had local candidates who would bring in birth certificates and passports and other documents to prove their identity. That was normal.. Adams wasn't alone in contradicting statements about the scope of duties for the Honolulu City Clerk's Elections Division, as their official web site made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the things he later claimed he did during the course of his employment in that capacity: Conducting elections involves: registering voters, maintaining the voter registration database on behalf of the four counties and the State of Hawaii, maintaining address and district data; checking signatures on city candidate/initiative petitions; issuing candidate nomination papers and filings; issuing and mailing absentee ballots; accepting, accounting for, and processing returned ballots; operating early voting locations; The Office of the City Clerk also accepts financial disclosure filings of candidates and City employees and provides clerical support to the Honolulu City Council. In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | [
"12278-proof-01-VGNOedj.jpg",
"12278-proof-03-Jrx3g4o.jpg"
] |
A Hawaii state official recently came forward with proof that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was not legitimate. | Contradiction | In mid-August 2015, the web site Patriot Newswire published an article titled 'WND: Former Hawaii Official Swears There's No Obama Birth Certificate,' aggregated by Mr. Conservative in a post titled 'Hawaii Officials Drop Bombshell About Obama's Birth Certificate.' (Both addressed long-debunked rumors known broadly as birther claims.) The latter claimed that shocking new information had surfaced about the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate via an election clerk in the state of Hawaii: Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams recently signed an affidavit swearing that his supervisors told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in the state of Hawaii. According to Patriot Newswire, neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu have any record of Obama being born at their hospitals. Both articles cited the web site World Net Daily as the source of claims about former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams and President Obama's birth certificate: WND has long been flogging discredited birther claims (including a particularly popular and poorly-vetted thread involving the President and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Both also linked to the article from which the assertions were entirely sourced, titled 'Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate' (subtitled 'Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent') and published on 24 January 2011. (No reason was provided by either website about why old WND claims were presented as novel or some sort of 'bombshell' in August 2015, more than four years after their initial appearance.) The original WND article opened by introducing Tim Adams, who claimed to have heard rumors from unspecified parties that unspecified parties sought to verify Obama's 'long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate': Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. 'During the course of my employment,' Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), 'I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.' 'Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,' Adams' affidavit reads, 'and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.' By whom the requests were made, what number of requests constituted 'many,' and by what means Adams determined that no record of that nature existed was not elaborated upon. Adams asserted in a phone interview with WND it was 'common knowledge among election officials' that the record was both sought after and impossible to locate, perplexingly adding that the document in question would have rested not with elections officials, but the Department of Health. Adams' claims weren't new when WND presented them in January 2011, either: Adams discussed them with the 'unapologetically pro-White' radio program The Political Cesspool in a video published to YouTube in July 2010 (the footage prominently displays logos from the notorious white supremacist/neo-Nazi internet forum Stormfront): In the clip, Adams participated in a phone conversation with host James Edwards. As in subsequent comments Adams made to WND, his assertions hinged upon rumors he claimed to have heard during the course of his temporary employment as an elections clerk in the county of Honolulu (rather than any substantive information supporting his assertions). Adams (who offered his 'professional opinion' that Obama was not born in the United States) rattled off a list of databases to which he purportedly had access during his temporary employment of unstated duration; none of those databases included the Department of Health with whom the record would have been located: I was Chief elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu on temporary contract. I ran an office that verified voter eligibility and had a staff of about 50 people. When this question came up, I had access to all the usual government databases that people had to verify identity, NCIS, Social Security, all sorts of other things that we use on average voters. There were two people higher than me in our office, who were under the City Clerk of Honolulu, and the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate. It was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. No effort was made during those separate interviews to differentiate the procedural differences in determining voter eligibility versus obtaining a birth certificate for any individual in or outside the scope of election clerk duties. Adams never clarified why his office (primarily tasked with matters of voting and election administration in the county of Honolulu) might have ever been involved with or otherwise knowledgeable on a purported search for a Department of Health record pertaining to a candidate in a national election. Overall, Adams' relevance to the larger controversy over Obama's eligibility was not clear in 2010 (nor was it in 2015). Adams wasn't the only party presenting partial, unexplained, or misrepresented 'evidence.' WND's entire 2011 'bombshell' was predicated on an affidavit (a sworn written statement certified by a notary public) Adams signed attesting to his claims. But no explanation for the necessity of an affidavit was provided; and it appeared that the document was generated solely for the purpose of implying the claims made in the article were credible. The affidavit itself involved little additional information above and beyond what Adams had shakily claimed in both interviews (adding the dates of his employment, May 2008 through September 2008). In it, Adams attested to rumors he heard about President Obama's birth certificate in the course of his duties processing absentee ballots as a temporary employee in Honolulu: By March 2011, Adams' claims evolved significantly. Whereas his affidavit stated in its final point that he was ordered not to investigate the matter of Obama's birth certificate, he later claimed he was charged with doing so in the course of his temporary employment processing absentee ballots. (He did, however, backpedal on claims that he had access to most databases that would hold that sort of information, saying instead that verification data was provided by various agencies outside the Board of Elections via inquiries.): Well, when the question about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii came up, our office - what we do is we verify voter identification. We also verify the identity of the candidates that go on the state ballot. And so the lady that I report to, who we mentioned earlier, that was part of their responsibility. They had to verify the identity of the people who go on the state ballot. So when the questions came up, we made inquiries, and the only thing we got back was, is, there are no documents. ... from those databases we couldn't, but what happens is is that when they ask us to verify the identity of the candidate that we have to go to the people who have the records, the Department of Health, Kapiolani Hospital, Queens Hospital, and the answer we got back from them was they don't have the records. ... it was our job. It's what we did. In some states the secretary of state would have done it directly in their office, I suppose, but in Hawaii the identities are verified through the Office of Elections We had local candidates who would bring in birth certificates and passports and other documents to prove their identity. That was normal.. Adams wasn't alone in contradicting statements about the scope of duties for the Honolulu City Clerk's Elections Division, as their official web site made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the things he later claimed he did during the course of his employment in that capacity: Conducting elections involves: registering voters, maintaining the voter registration database on behalf of the four counties and the State of Hawaii, maintaining address and district data; checking signatures on city candidate/initiative petitions; issuing candidate nomination papers and filings; issuing and mailing absentee ballots; accepting, accounting for, and processing returned ballots; operating early voting locations; The Office of the City Clerk also accepts financial disclosure filings of candidates and City employees and provides clerical support to the Honolulu City Council. In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | [
"12278-proof-01-VGNOedj.jpg",
"12278-proof-03-Jrx3g4o.jpg"
] |
A Hawaii state official recently came forward with proof that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was not legitimate. | Contradiction | In mid-August 2015, the web site Patriot Newswire published an article titled 'WND: Former Hawaii Official Swears There's No Obama Birth Certificate,' aggregated by Mr. Conservative in a post titled 'Hawaii Officials Drop Bombshell About Obama's Birth Certificate.' (Both addressed long-debunked rumors known broadly as birther claims.) The latter claimed that shocking new information had surfaced about the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate via an election clerk in the state of Hawaii: Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams recently signed an affidavit swearing that his supervisors told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in the state of Hawaii. According to Patriot Newswire, neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu have any record of Obama being born at their hospitals. Both articles cited the web site World Net Daily as the source of claims about former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams and President Obama's birth certificate: WND has long been flogging discredited birther claims (including a particularly popular and poorly-vetted thread involving the President and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan). Both also linked to the article from which the assertions were entirely sourced, titled 'Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate' (subtitled 'Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent') and published on 24 January 2011. (No reason was provided by either website about why old WND claims were presented as novel or some sort of 'bombshell' in August 2015, more than four years after their initial appearance.) The original WND article opened by introducing Tim Adams, who claimed to have heard rumors from unspecified parties that unspecified parties sought to verify Obama's 'long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate': Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. 'During the course of my employment,' Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), 'I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.' 'Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,' Adams' affidavit reads, 'and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.' By whom the requests were made, what number of requests constituted 'many,' and by what means Adams determined that no record of that nature existed was not elaborated upon. Adams asserted in a phone interview with WND it was 'common knowledge among election officials' that the record was both sought after and impossible to locate, perplexingly adding that the document in question would have rested not with elections officials, but the Department of Health. Adams' claims weren't new when WND presented them in January 2011, either: Adams discussed them with the 'unapologetically pro-White' radio program The Political Cesspool in a video published to YouTube in July 2010 (the footage prominently displays logos from the notorious white supremacist/neo-Nazi internet forum Stormfront): In the clip, Adams participated in a phone conversation with host James Edwards. As in subsequent comments Adams made to WND, his assertions hinged upon rumors he claimed to have heard during the course of his temporary employment as an elections clerk in the county of Honolulu (rather than any substantive information supporting his assertions). Adams (who offered his 'professional opinion' that Obama was not born in the United States) rattled off a list of databases to which he purportedly had access during his temporary employment of unstated duration; none of those databases included the Department of Health with whom the record would have been located: I was Chief elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu on temporary contract. I ran an office that verified voter eligibility and had a staff of about 50 people. When this question came up, I had access to all the usual government databases that people had to verify identity, NCIS, Social Security, all sorts of other things that we use on average voters. There were two people higher than me in our office, who were under the City Clerk of Honolulu, and the question came up about the birth certificate and about President Obama's birthplace. In our professional opinion, Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate. It was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation. Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. No effort was made during those separate interviews to differentiate the procedural differences in determining voter eligibility versus obtaining a birth certificate for any individual in or outside the scope of election clerk duties. Adams never clarified why his office (primarily tasked with matters of voting and election administration in the county of Honolulu) might have ever been involved with or otherwise knowledgeable on a purported search for a Department of Health record pertaining to a candidate in a national election. Overall, Adams' relevance to the larger controversy over Obama's eligibility was not clear in 2010 (nor was it in 2015). Adams wasn't the only party presenting partial, unexplained, or misrepresented 'evidence.' WND's entire 2011 'bombshell' was predicated on an affidavit (a sworn written statement certified by a notary public) Adams signed attesting to his claims. But no explanation for the necessity of an affidavit was provided; and it appeared that the document was generated solely for the purpose of implying the claims made in the article were credible. The affidavit itself involved little additional information above and beyond what Adams had shakily claimed in both interviews (adding the dates of his employment, May 2008 through September 2008). In it, Adams attested to rumors he heard about President Obama's birth certificate in the course of his duties processing absentee ballots as a temporary employee in Honolulu: By March 2011, Adams' claims evolved significantly. Whereas his affidavit stated in its final point that he was ordered not to investigate the matter of Obama's birth certificate, he later claimed he was charged with doing so in the course of his temporary employment processing absentee ballots. (He did, however, backpedal on claims that he had access to most databases that would hold that sort of information, saying instead that verification data was provided by various agencies outside the Board of Elections via inquiries.): Well, when the question about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii came up, our office - what we do is we verify voter identification. We also verify the identity of the candidates that go on the state ballot. And so the lady that I report to, who we mentioned earlier, that was part of their responsibility. They had to verify the identity of the people who go on the state ballot. So when the questions came up, we made inquiries, and the only thing we got back was, is, there are no documents. ... from those databases we couldn't, but what happens is is that when they ask us to verify the identity of the candidate that we have to go to the people who have the records, the Department of Health, Kapiolani Hospital, Queens Hospital, and the answer we got back from them was they don't have the records. ... it was our job. It's what we did. In some states the secretary of state would have done it directly in their office, I suppose, but in Hawaii the identities are verified through the Office of Elections We had local candidates who would bring in birth certificates and passports and other documents to prove their identity. That was normal.. Adams wasn't alone in contradicting statements about the scope of duties for the Honolulu City Clerk's Elections Division, as their official web site made absolutely no mention whatsoever of the things he later claimed he did during the course of his employment in that capacity: Conducting elections involves: registering voters, maintaining the voter registration database on behalf of the four counties and the State of Hawaii, maintaining address and district data; checking signatures on city candidate/initiative petitions; issuing candidate nomination papers and filings; issuing and mailing absentee ballots; accepting, accounting for, and processing returned ballots; operating early voting locations; The Office of the City Clerk also accepts financial disclosure filings of candidates and City employees and provides clerical support to the Honolulu City Council. In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | In short, what was described as a 'bombshell' revelation from a Honolulu elections clerk in August 2015 about the eligibility of President Obama based upon his birth certificate was in no way a new claim: Tim Adams had appeared on white nationalist radio shows more than five years earlier peddling his Swiss-cheese story. When the claim ran as an exclusive at WND in January 2011, the affidavit upon which it was based attested merely to hearsay and rumors. And while Adams initially asserted that he was not party to a purported ongoing search for Obama's long-form birth certificate, he appeared months later claiming that he was an integral member of the birther investigation team as part of his six-month-long temp job at the elections division in 2008. Adams' multiple recitations of things he claimed he heard didn't amount to much when they first cropped up around Stormfront in 2010, and no new 'information' accompanied them in 2015 when they were repeated on web sites as novel findings.Kim LaCapria barack obama | [
"12278-proof-01-VGNOedj.jpg",
"12278-proof-03-Jrx3g4o.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows Bernie Sanders at a 1965 civil rights march with Martin Luther King, Jr. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing 'behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket' as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark 'March on Washington' civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic 'I Have a Dream' speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., 'one of the great leaders in American history.' Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his 'I have a dream' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life.' As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was 'brief and localized' and effectively ended in 1963: Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | [
"12341-proof-06-bernie_sanders_civil_rights_march_miscaption_faux_fb.jpg",
"12341-proof-08-bernie-sanders-selma.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows Bernie Sanders at a 1965 civil rights march with Martin Luther King, Jr. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing 'behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket' as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark 'March on Washington' civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic 'I Have a Dream' speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., 'one of the great leaders in American history.' Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his 'I have a dream' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life.' As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was 'brief and localized' and effectively ended in 1963: Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | [
"12341-proof-06-bernie_sanders_civil_rights_march_miscaption_faux_fb.jpg",
"12341-proof-08-bernie-sanders-selma.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows Bernie Sanders at a 1965 civil rights march with Martin Luther King, Jr. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing 'behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket' as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark 'March on Washington' civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic 'I Have a Dream' speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., 'one of the great leaders in American history.' Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his 'I have a dream' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 'We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life.' As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was 'brief and localized' and effectively ended in 1963: Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | In short: There's no evidence Bernie Sanders took part in the 1965 march pictured above, other than a photograph showing a face in the crowd that bears some resemblance to him. No one verifiably present at that march has recounted seeing Sanders there, no contemporaneous accounts of the march mentioned his name, and the face circled in the above photograph wasn't associated with Sanders' name until some 50 years after the fact. Sanders' active involve with the Civil Rights Movement had ended a few years prior to that 1965 march, and there's no record of his having been in Alabama around that time. Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX - Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, | [
"12341-proof-06-bernie_sanders_civil_rights_march_miscaption_faux_fb.jpg",
"12341-proof-08-bernie-sanders-selma.jpg"
] |
A comparison of four cases demonstrates a racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions. | Contradiction | One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks: However, the 'Tax Racism' meme offered examples - not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion - so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue - the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. Al Capone By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed 'Public Enemy No. 1' after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, 'They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money.' He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. What Is Tax Evasion? At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons - maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the 'Queen of Mean,' was a billionaire who - along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley - owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that 'We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes,' fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt - the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Al Sharpton Where along the tax-evader spectrum between 'legitimate dispute' and 'willful tax fraud' civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the 'why' and 'how much' of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced 'old taxes' and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was 'current on all taxes' he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. 'We're talking about old taxes,' he said, adding: 'We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true.' The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | [
"12369-proof-04-incometaxes.jpg"
] |
A comparison of four cases demonstrates a racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions. | Contradiction | One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks: However, the 'Tax Racism' meme offered examples - not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion - so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue - the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. Al Capone By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed 'Public Enemy No. 1' after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, 'They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money.' He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. What Is Tax Evasion? At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons - maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the 'Queen of Mean,' was a billionaire who - along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley - owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that 'We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes,' fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt - the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Al Sharpton Where along the tax-evader spectrum between 'legitimate dispute' and 'willful tax fraud' civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the 'why' and 'how much' of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced 'old taxes' and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was 'current on all taxes' he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. 'We're talking about old taxes,' he said, adding: 'We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true.' The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | [
"12369-proof-04-incometaxes.jpg"
] |
A comparison of four cases demonstrates a racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions. | Contradiction | One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks: However, the 'Tax Racism' meme offered examples - not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion - so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue - the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. Al Capone By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed 'Public Enemy No. 1' after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, 'They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money.' He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. What Is Tax Evasion? At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons - maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the 'Queen of Mean,' was a billionaire who - along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley - owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that 'We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes,' fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt - the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Al Sharpton Where along the tax-evader spectrum between 'legitimate dispute' and 'willful tax fraud' civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the 'why' and 'how much' of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced 'old taxes' and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was 'current on all taxes' he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. 'We're talking about old taxes,' he said, adding: 'We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true.' The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | [
"12369-proof-04-incometaxes.jpg"
] |
A comparison of four cases demonstrates a racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions. | Contradiction | One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks: However, the 'Tax Racism' meme offered examples - not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion - so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue - the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. Al Capone By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed 'Public Enemy No. 1' after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, 'They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money.' He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. What Is Tax Evasion? At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons - maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the 'Queen of Mean,' was a billionaire who - along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley - owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that 'We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes,' fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt - the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Al Sharpton Where along the tax-evader spectrum between 'legitimate dispute' and 'willful tax fraud' civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the 'why' and 'how much' of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced 'old taxes' and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was 'current on all taxes' he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. 'We're talking about old taxes,' he said, adding: 'We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true.' The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | Conclusion The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. | [
"12369-proof-04-incometaxes.jpg"
] |
The TV show 'The Simpsons' predicted the death of George Floyd. | 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. In June 2020, a set of images started to circulate on social media supposedly showing screen grabs from an episode of 'The Simpsons' in which the long-running animated show 'predicted' the death of George Floyd, a black man whose death while in Minneapolis Police custody sparked nationwide protests: These images do not show a 'prediction' that 'The Simpsons' made in the 1990s. The image on the right showing Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck - a scene reminiscent of George Floyd's death - while Lisa Simpson stands by holding a 'Justice for George' sign was created by Instagram user Yuri Pomo. This image did not appear in an episode of 'The Simpsons' and it was posted to Pomo's Instagram account on May 30, five days after Floyd's death. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yuri Pomo - Vipcartoonizer (@yuripomo) on May 30, 2020 at 10:07am PDT Pomo captioned the image on Instagram: Normally you're used to see colorful and cheerful drawings from me, but since i've got quite a good audience, i'd like to use it as much as i can in the right way when the situation requires it, and bring something good, and useful with my drawings, and you guys know it. Especially in this exact moment. With this piece i'd like you to think deeply, Taking the chance to bring The Simpsons as an example for the cause. The Simpsons has always been everyone's childhood, so the message will be clear and strong enough i suppose. Imagine you're sat with you daughter/son watching the Simpsons, and all of a sudden this scene happens in the show, as cruel as it has been, no jokes, no irony, nothing that the Simpsons normally has, and what it's loved for. Imagine that, how would you feel? ... Think about that deeply, and give yourself an answer, no need to add anything else! The above-displayed collage also implies that 'The Simpsons' predicted that a police station would be lit on fire. Although a precinct in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was truly set ablaze, the image in this collection does not show that fire. The photograph in the bottom left corner of this collection actually shows an unfinished housing complex. That photograph is available via The Associated Press and captioned as follows: A multi-story affordable housing complex under construction near the Third Precinct, burns on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minn. Protests were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis Police officer Monday. (Mark Vancleave/Star Tribune via AP) The image on the top left, showing the Springfield police station on fire, truly does come from an episode of 'The Simpsons.' However, this image has nothing to do with protests, riots, George Floyd, or police violence. Instead, it refers to a joke 'The Simpsons' made about police incompetence. In the episode 'Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder' (Season 11, Episode 6), Homer decides to bypass traffic by driving along the grassy area next to the highway. He is pulled over by Springfield's Police Chief Wiggum, who asks: 'Alright smart guy, where's the fire?' Homer replies 'over there' and points to a flaming Springfield police station. Chief Wiggum responds: 'Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.' We have not been able to find a publicly available version of this clip to share in this article, but here's a GIF capturing the moment: Alright smart guy where's the fire? from TheSimpsons In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | [] |
The TV show 'The Simpsons' predicted the death of George Floyd. | 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. In June 2020, a set of images started to circulate on social media supposedly showing screen grabs from an episode of 'The Simpsons' in which the long-running animated show 'predicted' the death of George Floyd, a black man whose death while in Minneapolis Police custody sparked nationwide protests: These images do not show a 'prediction' that 'The Simpsons' made in the 1990s. The image on the right showing Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck - a scene reminiscent of George Floyd's death - while Lisa Simpson stands by holding a 'Justice for George' sign was created by Instagram user Yuri Pomo. This image did not appear in an episode of 'The Simpsons' and it was posted to Pomo's Instagram account on May 30, five days after Floyd's death. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yuri Pomo - Vipcartoonizer (@yuripomo) on May 30, 2020 at 10:07am PDT Pomo captioned the image on Instagram: Normally you're used to see colorful and cheerful drawings from me, but since i've got quite a good audience, i'd like to use it as much as i can in the right way when the situation requires it, and bring something good, and useful with my drawings, and you guys know it. Especially in this exact moment. With this piece i'd like you to think deeply, Taking the chance to bring The Simpsons as an example for the cause. The Simpsons has always been everyone's childhood, so the message will be clear and strong enough i suppose. Imagine you're sat with you daughter/son watching the Simpsons, and all of a sudden this scene happens in the show, as cruel as it has been, no jokes, no irony, nothing that the Simpsons normally has, and what it's loved for. Imagine that, how would you feel? ... Think about that deeply, and give yourself an answer, no need to add anything else! The above-displayed collage also implies that 'The Simpsons' predicted that a police station would be lit on fire. Although a precinct in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was truly set ablaze, the image in this collection does not show that fire. The photograph in the bottom left corner of this collection actually shows an unfinished housing complex. That photograph is available via The Associated Press and captioned as follows: A multi-story affordable housing complex under construction near the Third Precinct, burns on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minn. Protests were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis Police officer Monday. (Mark Vancleave/Star Tribune via AP) The image on the top left, showing the Springfield police station on fire, truly does come from an episode of 'The Simpsons.' However, this image has nothing to do with protests, riots, George Floyd, or police violence. Instead, it refers to a joke 'The Simpsons' made about police incompetence. In the episode 'Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder' (Season 11, Episode 6), Homer decides to bypass traffic by driving along the grassy area next to the highway. He is pulled over by Springfield's Police Chief Wiggum, who asks: 'Alright smart guy, where's the fire?' Homer replies 'over there' and points to a flaming Springfield police station. Chief Wiggum responds: 'Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.' We have not been able to find a publicly available version of this clip to share in this article, but here's a GIF capturing the moment: Alright smart guy where's the fire? from TheSimpsons In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | [] |
The TV show 'The Simpsons' predicted the death of George Floyd. | 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. In June 2020, a set of images started to circulate on social media supposedly showing screen grabs from an episode of 'The Simpsons' in which the long-running animated show 'predicted' the death of George Floyd, a black man whose death while in Minneapolis Police custody sparked nationwide protests: These images do not show a 'prediction' that 'The Simpsons' made in the 1990s. The image on the right showing Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck - a scene reminiscent of George Floyd's death - while Lisa Simpson stands by holding a 'Justice for George' sign was created by Instagram user Yuri Pomo. This image did not appear in an episode of 'The Simpsons' and it was posted to Pomo's Instagram account on May 30, five days after Floyd's death. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yuri Pomo - Vipcartoonizer (@yuripomo) on May 30, 2020 at 10:07am PDT Pomo captioned the image on Instagram: Normally you're used to see colorful and cheerful drawings from me, but since i've got quite a good audience, i'd like to use it as much as i can in the right way when the situation requires it, and bring something good, and useful with my drawings, and you guys know it. Especially in this exact moment. With this piece i'd like you to think deeply, Taking the chance to bring The Simpsons as an example for the cause. The Simpsons has always been everyone's childhood, so the message will be clear and strong enough i suppose. Imagine you're sat with you daughter/son watching the Simpsons, and all of a sudden this scene happens in the show, as cruel as it has been, no jokes, no irony, nothing that the Simpsons normally has, and what it's loved for. Imagine that, how would you feel? ... Think about that deeply, and give yourself an answer, no need to add anything else! The above-displayed collage also implies that 'The Simpsons' predicted that a police station would be lit on fire. Although a precinct in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was truly set ablaze, the image in this collection does not show that fire. The photograph in the bottom left corner of this collection actually shows an unfinished housing complex. That photograph is available via The Associated Press and captioned as follows: A multi-story affordable housing complex under construction near the Third Precinct, burns on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minn. Protests were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis Police officer Monday. (Mark Vancleave/Star Tribune via AP) The image on the top left, showing the Springfield police station on fire, truly does come from an episode of 'The Simpsons.' However, this image has nothing to do with protests, riots, George Floyd, or police violence. Instead, it refers to a joke 'The Simpsons' made about police incompetence. In the episode 'Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder' (Season 11, Episode 6), Homer decides to bypass traffic by driving along the grassy area next to the highway. He is pulled over by Springfield's Police Chief Wiggum, who asks: 'Alright smart guy, where's the fire?' Homer replies 'over there' and points to a flaming Springfield police station. Chief Wiggum responds: 'Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.' We have not been able to find a publicly available version of this clip to share in this article, but here's a GIF capturing the moment: Alright smart guy where's the fire? from TheSimpsons In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | [] |
The TV show 'The Simpsons' predicted the death of George Floyd. | 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. In June 2020, a set of images started to circulate on social media supposedly showing screen grabs from an episode of 'The Simpsons' in which the long-running animated show 'predicted' the death of George Floyd, a black man whose death while in Minneapolis Police custody sparked nationwide protests: These images do not show a 'prediction' that 'The Simpsons' made in the 1990s. The image on the right showing Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck - a scene reminiscent of George Floyd's death - while Lisa Simpson stands by holding a 'Justice for George' sign was created by Instagram user Yuri Pomo. This image did not appear in an episode of 'The Simpsons' and it was posted to Pomo's Instagram account on May 30, five days after Floyd's death. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yuri Pomo - Vipcartoonizer (@yuripomo) on May 30, 2020 at 10:07am PDT Pomo captioned the image on Instagram: Normally you're used to see colorful and cheerful drawings from me, but since i've got quite a good audience, i'd like to use it as much as i can in the right way when the situation requires it, and bring something good, and useful with my drawings, and you guys know it. Especially in this exact moment. With this piece i'd like you to think deeply, Taking the chance to bring The Simpsons as an example for the cause. The Simpsons has always been everyone's childhood, so the message will be clear and strong enough i suppose. Imagine you're sat with you daughter/son watching the Simpsons, and all of a sudden this scene happens in the show, as cruel as it has been, no jokes, no irony, nothing that the Simpsons normally has, and what it's loved for. Imagine that, how would you feel? ... Think about that deeply, and give yourself an answer, no need to add anything else! The above-displayed collage also implies that 'The Simpsons' predicted that a police station would be lit on fire. Although a precinct in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was truly set ablaze, the image in this collection does not show that fire. The photograph in the bottom left corner of this collection actually shows an unfinished housing complex. That photograph is available via The Associated Press and captioned as follows: A multi-story affordable housing complex under construction near the Third Precinct, burns on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minn. Protests were sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis Police officer Monday. (Mark Vancleave/Star Tribune via AP) The image on the top left, showing the Springfield police station on fire, truly does come from an episode of 'The Simpsons.' However, this image has nothing to do with protests, riots, George Floyd, or police violence. Instead, it refers to a joke 'The Simpsons' made about police incompetence. In the episode 'Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder' (Season 11, Episode 6), Homer decides to bypass traffic by driving along the grassy area next to the highway. He is pulled over by Springfield's Police Chief Wiggum, who asks: 'Alright smart guy, where's the fire?' Homer replies 'over there' and points to a flaming Springfield police station. Chief Wiggum responds: 'Okay, you just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity... Or is that a 314? Nah nah, 314 is a dog uh, in, no or is that a 315?... You're in trouble pal.' We have not been able to find a publicly available version of this clip to share in this article, but here's a GIF capturing the moment: Alright smart guy where's the fire? from TheSimpsons In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | In sum, 'The Simpsons' didn't predict Floyd's death or the resulting protests or fires. The image of Chief Wiggum kneeling on a black man's neck was shared in the days after Floyd's death and didn't appear in an official episode of the show. Although the image of the Springfield police station burning did come from an episode of 'The Simpsons,' this clip had nothing to do with Floyd or the 2020 protests. | [] |
Fans of Cracker Barrel should 'say goodbye' because the restaurant chain is closing stores 'across the nation. | Contradiction | In June 2021, a misleading advertisement appeared to claim that the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store American restaurant chain was closing. However, fans of the establishment have no need to worry. Cracker Barrel and its menu of southern foods won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The False Advertisement The ad read: 'Saying Goodbye: Stores Closing in 2021 Across The Nation (See Full List).' It was paid for by an unknown party and was hosted on the Outbrain advertising network. Misleading. However, this was nothing but clickbait. Cracker Barrel never ended up appearing anywhere in the 35-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad. The article appeared to originate on Definition.org. According to a news release from May 2021, the company was nearing 2019 levels of revenue after closing some dining rooms during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The report mentioned nothing about closing stores 'across the nation.' Cracker Barrel's Menu Cracker Barrel's menu features breakfast all day, and a variety of southern comfort foods. Daily specials keep customers coming back, such as Broccoli Cheddar Chicken on Wednesdays, Turkey N' Dressing on Thursdays, and a Friday Fish Fry dish. A waitress serving food at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant. (Photo by: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) The menu also includes other seafood, burgers, sweets, and large family meals. Cracker Barrel was founded by Dan Evins in 1969. The first location was located in Lebanon, Tennessee. TikTok Trends In May 2021, we reported on what appeared to be a new TikTok trend involving the restaurant. Videos showed Cracker Barrel diners leaving behind framed photos of themselves after wait staff collected their menus and walked away. @genevievew07 #friends #crackerbarrel #crackerbarrelchallenge #fun #fyp #foryou ♬ GOOD TIME (feat. Shaggy) - Niko Moon The restaurants are full of southern decor and old photographs that adorn the walls and the hearth of the fireplaces. Some customers attempted to blend in with the surroundings to see how long it took for the employees to notice. There was also a TikTok trend amongst people of color where they pretended to walk into a Cracker Barrel: @cdior_ Something about Cracker Barrel just doesn't sit right with me 😂 #greenscreen #fyp #foryoupage ♬ you need to leave - m The 'you need to leave' TikTok sound effect is one of a countless number of popular audio clips that are used in the platform's videos. In sum, Cracker Barrel's menu is here to stay. The restaurants and stores are not closing, as falsely implied by the advertisement. 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, Cracker Barrel's menu is here to stay. The restaurants and stores are not closing, as falsely implied by the advertisement. 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. | [
"12440-proof-02-cracker-barrel-menu-closing-1200.jpg",
"12440-proof-04-cracker-barrel-menu-food.jpg"
] |
Fans of Cracker Barrel should 'say goodbye' because the restaurant chain is closing stores 'across the nation. | Contradiction | In June 2021, a misleading advertisement appeared to claim that the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store American restaurant chain was closing. However, fans of the establishment have no need to worry. Cracker Barrel and its menu of southern foods won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The False Advertisement The ad read: 'Saying Goodbye: Stores Closing in 2021 Across The Nation (See Full List).' It was paid for by an unknown party and was hosted on the Outbrain advertising network. Misleading. However, this was nothing but clickbait. Cracker Barrel never ended up appearing anywhere in the 35-page slideshow article that resulted from clicking the ad. The article appeared to originate on Definition.org. According to a news release from May 2021, the company was nearing 2019 levels of revenue after closing some dining rooms during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The report mentioned nothing about closing stores 'across the nation.' Cracker Barrel's Menu Cracker Barrel's menu features breakfast all day, and a variety of southern comfort foods. Daily specials keep customers coming back, such as Broccoli Cheddar Chicken on Wednesdays, Turkey N' Dressing on Thursdays, and a Friday Fish Fry dish. A waitress serving food at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant. (Photo by: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) The menu also includes other seafood, burgers, sweets, and large family meals. Cracker Barrel was founded by Dan Evins in 1969. The first location was located in Lebanon, Tennessee. TikTok Trends In May 2021, we reported on what appeared to be a new TikTok trend involving the restaurant. Videos showed Cracker Barrel diners leaving behind framed photos of themselves after wait staff collected their menus and walked away. @genevievew07 #friends #crackerbarrel #crackerbarrelchallenge #fun #fyp #foryou ♬ GOOD TIME (feat. Shaggy) - Niko Moon The restaurants are full of southern decor and old photographs that adorn the walls and the hearth of the fireplaces. Some customers attempted to blend in with the surroundings to see how long it took for the employees to notice. There was also a TikTok trend amongst people of color where they pretended to walk into a Cracker Barrel: @cdior_ Something about Cracker Barrel just doesn't sit right with me 😂 #greenscreen #fyp #foryoupage ♬ you need to leave - m The 'you need to leave' TikTok sound effect is one of a countless number of popular audio clips that are used in the platform's videos. In sum, Cracker Barrel's menu is here to stay. The restaurants and stores are not closing, as falsely implied by the advertisement. 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, Cracker Barrel's menu is here to stay. The restaurants and stores are not closing, as falsely implied by the advertisement. 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. | [
"12440-proof-02-cracker-barrel-menu-closing-1200.jpg",
"12440-proof-04-cracker-barrel-menu-food.jpg"
] |
The Trump campaign released a statement announcing its own inauguration ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, in Florida. | Contradiction | On Dec. 17, 2020, a message circulated on social media supposedly announcing an event hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Florida, on Jan. 20, 2021 - the day of President-elect Joe Biden's swearing-in ceremony - and continuing Trump's misinformation campaign around election results. The statement, which included a mass heading like that of official messages from the Trump campaign and was allegedly authored by Bill Stepien, Trump's campaign manager, alleged that Trump was not only preparing to bypass Biden's presidential inauguration in Washington D.C., but that he was planning to host an alternative inaugural event with supporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on the same day. The viral message read: [Winner] of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, Donald J. Trump, and his Administration look forward to the January 20th Inauguration of their continuation of power and Second Term! [...] We look forward to celebrating this occasion with all Americans! Regardless of the intentions of so-called President Elect Joe Biden, President Donald Trump will not be conceding the 2020 election, nor does he plan on leaving the White house at point prior to January 20th. Any attempt to remove the Trump administration will require force. We will not back down from this fight. Americans deserve better. Despite the fact that Trump indeed had not conceded loss to Biden, the message announcing the Florida event was fake. If the sitting president was indeed planning any kind of celebration at the resort, the campaign would have advertised it in messages to supporters, given its history of communicating similar announcements. But as of the original publication of this report, a Dec. 15 news release titled, 'Trump campaign statement on Joe Biden visit to Georgia' was the most recent official message from the political operation, and nothing on the campaign's website announced an event on Inauguration Day. Additionally, no Trump campaign fundraising emails obtained by Snopes included the above-transcribed message, and no one within the president's inner circle - nor the president himself - had advertised the alleged celebration in public remarks or on social media. In fact, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on several occasions declined to discuss Trump's plans for Inauguration Day, eliminating any possibility that she at one point promoted a Jan. 20 event described in the social media posts. 'He knows what his decision is, and he'll make his decision at the right time,' she said at Dec. 2 press conference, a comment that neither confirmed nor denied rumors in news reports holding that Trump would skip Biden's inauguration for a Florida event. Snopes reached out to the White House and Trump campaign directly, asking for its response to the rumor about Trump hosting a so-called inauguration event on the day that typically serves to signal a peaceful transfer of power between outgoing and incoming presidents. We have not heard back, and we will update this post when or if we do. In sum, given there's no official record of the above-displayed message from the Trump campaign, as well as the fact that no White House source has confirmed the message or its contents as authentic, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, given there's no official record of the above-displayed message from the Trump campaign, as well as the fact that no White House source has confirmed the message or its contents as authentic, we rate this claim 'False.' | [] |
Anti-sex beds made out of cardboard have been installed in Olympic Village ahead of the 2020 games. | Contradiction | In July 2021, as the 2020 Olympics approached (the games were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic), a rumor started circulating on social media that the athletes would be sleeping on 'anti-sex' beds in the Olympic Village: However, these are not anti-sex beds; they can easily support the weight of two average-sized people, and they do not break with any sudden movement. The meme does correctly state that these beds are made of cardboard and that they will be recycled after the games. The Olympic Village has a reputation (although possibly an unfair one) for being a hotbed of sexual activities. In 2016, the Guardian reported that nearly a half million condoms were provided to the athletes during the summer games in Rio de Janeiro. Seventeen days, 10,500 athletes, 33 venues, and 450,000 condoms. That's how many camisinhas (little shirts in Brazilian slang) are being supplied by the International Olympics Committee for the 2016 Rio Summer Games. Forty-two per athlete, to be specific, which, even by Olympic standards, is a hell of a lot... ... 'It is an absolutely huge allocation of condoms,' admits Olympic rowing gold and silver medallist Zac Purchase, who retired from rowing in 2014 and competed in London and Beijing. 'But it is all so far from the truth of what it's like to be in there. It's not some sexualised cauldron of activity. We're talking about athletes who are focused on producing the best performance of their lives.' With the Olympic Village's reputation for promiscuity, and with various 'social distancing' measures being enacted due to the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, many social media users assumed that the cardboard beds were some sort of anti-sex measure. But that's not the case. These beds were designed to be more green, not to prevent sex. Rhys Mcclenaghan, an Irish gymnast competing at the 2020 Games, posted a video on Twitter debunking the notion that the beds would break with 'any sudden movement.' 'Anti-sex' beds at the Olympics pic.twitter.com/2jnFm6mKcB - Rhys Mcclenaghan (@McClenaghanRhys) July 18, 2021 Long before rumors started circulating that these were 'anti-sex' beds, the cardboard beds were touted as one of the ways Tokyo was attempting to make the Olympics more environmentally friendly. A news release from 2019 published on the Olympics news site 'Inside the Games' detailed the specs and purpose of these cardboard beds. The bedding company Airweave said that it was providing 18,000 beds to the Olympic Village that were made from 'high resistance lightweight cardboard.' The company said that the beds can hold more than 440 pounds, and that after the games the beds would be recycled. Tokyo 2020 has revealed the beds athletes will sleep in at next year's Olympic and Paralympic Games. In all, 18,000 beds will be required at the Olympic Village, with 8,000 at the Paralympic Village. They will be provided by Airweave, an official Tokyo 2020 partner company, and include blue and white duvets featuring a square pattern and the Games logos. [...] 'The design of the mattress leverages the latest innovations in bed surface technology,' Tokyo 2020 said today. 'It comprises three distinct sections supporting the upper, middle and lower body, and the hardness of each section can be customised to suit each athlete's body shape. The pillows have an indentation in the centre, providing good support for the neck and head regardless of whether athletes are sleeping on their backs or sides. 'All of the bed frames will be made from high-resistance cardboard, able to support weights of up to 200 kilograms. They will be recycled into paper products after the Games, with the mattress components recycled into new plastic products. This will be the first time in Olympic and Paralympic history that all beds and bedding are made almost entirely from renewable materials.' In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | [
"12573-proof-02-anti-sex-beds-false.jpg",
"12573-proof-03-olympic-beds.jpg"
] |
Anti-sex beds made out of cardboard have been installed in Olympic Village ahead of the 2020 games. | Contradiction | In July 2021, as the 2020 Olympics approached (the games were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic), a rumor started circulating on social media that the athletes would be sleeping on 'anti-sex' beds in the Olympic Village: However, these are not anti-sex beds; they can easily support the weight of two average-sized people, and they do not break with any sudden movement. The meme does correctly state that these beds are made of cardboard and that they will be recycled after the games. The Olympic Village has a reputation (although possibly an unfair one) for being a hotbed of sexual activities. In 2016, the Guardian reported that nearly a half million condoms were provided to the athletes during the summer games in Rio de Janeiro. Seventeen days, 10,500 athletes, 33 venues, and 450,000 condoms. That's how many camisinhas (little shirts in Brazilian slang) are being supplied by the International Olympics Committee for the 2016 Rio Summer Games. Forty-two per athlete, to be specific, which, even by Olympic standards, is a hell of a lot... ... 'It is an absolutely huge allocation of condoms,' admits Olympic rowing gold and silver medallist Zac Purchase, who retired from rowing in 2014 and competed in London and Beijing. 'But it is all so far from the truth of what it's like to be in there. It's not some sexualised cauldron of activity. We're talking about athletes who are focused on producing the best performance of their lives.' With the Olympic Village's reputation for promiscuity, and with various 'social distancing' measures being enacted due to the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, many social media users assumed that the cardboard beds were some sort of anti-sex measure. But that's not the case. These beds were designed to be more green, not to prevent sex. Rhys Mcclenaghan, an Irish gymnast competing at the 2020 Games, posted a video on Twitter debunking the notion that the beds would break with 'any sudden movement.' 'Anti-sex' beds at the Olympics pic.twitter.com/2jnFm6mKcB - Rhys Mcclenaghan (@McClenaghanRhys) July 18, 2021 Long before rumors started circulating that these were 'anti-sex' beds, the cardboard beds were touted as one of the ways Tokyo was attempting to make the Olympics more environmentally friendly. A news release from 2019 published on the Olympics news site 'Inside the Games' detailed the specs and purpose of these cardboard beds. The bedding company Airweave said that it was providing 18,000 beds to the Olympic Village that were made from 'high resistance lightweight cardboard.' The company said that the beds can hold more than 440 pounds, and that after the games the beds would be recycled. Tokyo 2020 has revealed the beds athletes will sleep in at next year's Olympic and Paralympic Games. In all, 18,000 beds will be required at the Olympic Village, with 8,000 at the Paralympic Village. They will be provided by Airweave, an official Tokyo 2020 partner company, and include blue and white duvets featuring a square pattern and the Games logos. [...] 'The design of the mattress leverages the latest innovations in bed surface technology,' Tokyo 2020 said today. 'It comprises three distinct sections supporting the upper, middle and lower body, and the hardness of each section can be customised to suit each athlete's body shape. The pillows have an indentation in the centre, providing good support for the neck and head regardless of whether athletes are sleeping on their backs or sides. 'All of the bed frames will be made from high-resistance cardboard, able to support weights of up to 200 kilograms. They will be recycled into paper products after the Games, with the mattress components recycled into new plastic products. This will be the first time in Olympic and Paralympic history that all beds and bedding are made almost entirely from renewable materials.' In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | [
"12573-proof-02-anti-sex-beds-false.jpg",
"12573-proof-03-olympic-beds.jpg"
] |
Anti-sex beds made out of cardboard have been installed in Olympic Village ahead of the 2020 games. | Contradiction | In July 2021, as the 2020 Olympics approached (the games were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic), a rumor started circulating on social media that the athletes would be sleeping on 'anti-sex' beds in the Olympic Village: However, these are not anti-sex beds; they can easily support the weight of two average-sized people, and they do not break with any sudden movement. The meme does correctly state that these beds are made of cardboard and that they will be recycled after the games. The Olympic Village has a reputation (although possibly an unfair one) for being a hotbed of sexual activities. In 2016, the Guardian reported that nearly a half million condoms were provided to the athletes during the summer games in Rio de Janeiro. Seventeen days, 10,500 athletes, 33 venues, and 450,000 condoms. That's how many camisinhas (little shirts in Brazilian slang) are being supplied by the International Olympics Committee for the 2016 Rio Summer Games. Forty-two per athlete, to be specific, which, even by Olympic standards, is a hell of a lot... ... 'It is an absolutely huge allocation of condoms,' admits Olympic rowing gold and silver medallist Zac Purchase, who retired from rowing in 2014 and competed in London and Beijing. 'But it is all so far from the truth of what it's like to be in there. It's not some sexualised cauldron of activity. We're talking about athletes who are focused on producing the best performance of their lives.' With the Olympic Village's reputation for promiscuity, and with various 'social distancing' measures being enacted due to the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, many social media users assumed that the cardboard beds were some sort of anti-sex measure. But that's not the case. These beds were designed to be more green, not to prevent sex. Rhys Mcclenaghan, an Irish gymnast competing at the 2020 Games, posted a video on Twitter debunking the notion that the beds would break with 'any sudden movement.' 'Anti-sex' beds at the Olympics pic.twitter.com/2jnFm6mKcB - Rhys Mcclenaghan (@McClenaghanRhys) July 18, 2021 Long before rumors started circulating that these were 'anti-sex' beds, the cardboard beds were touted as one of the ways Tokyo was attempting to make the Olympics more environmentally friendly. A news release from 2019 published on the Olympics news site 'Inside the Games' detailed the specs and purpose of these cardboard beds. The bedding company Airweave said that it was providing 18,000 beds to the Olympic Village that were made from 'high resistance lightweight cardboard.' The company said that the beds can hold more than 440 pounds, and that after the games the beds would be recycled. Tokyo 2020 has revealed the beds athletes will sleep in at next year's Olympic and Paralympic Games. In all, 18,000 beds will be required at the Olympic Village, with 8,000 at the Paralympic Village. They will be provided by Airweave, an official Tokyo 2020 partner company, and include blue and white duvets featuring a square pattern and the Games logos. [...] 'The design of the mattress leverages the latest innovations in bed surface technology,' Tokyo 2020 said today. 'It comprises three distinct sections supporting the upper, middle and lower body, and the hardness of each section can be customised to suit each athlete's body shape. The pillows have an indentation in the centre, providing good support for the neck and head regardless of whether athletes are sleeping on their backs or sides. 'All of the bed frames will be made from high-resistance cardboard, able to support weights of up to 200 kilograms. They will be recycled into paper products after the Games, with the mattress components recycled into new plastic products. This will be the first time in Olympic and Paralympic history that all beds and bedding are made almost entirely from renewable materials.' In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | In sum, Olympic athletes will indeed be sleeping on cardboard beds during the 2020 games. These beds were designed to make the games more sustainable, not to prevent athletes from having sex. | [
"12573-proof-02-anti-sex-beds-false.jpg",
"12573-proof-03-olympic-beds.jpg"
] |
Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment. | Contradiction | In 2013, an entertainment website published a fictitious article that claimed Fox News had been reclassified as 'satire' by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the network would start displaying a disclaimer reading: 'This is not a valid news source.' While that fictitious article was clearly not genuine news, the general idea that Fox News was not an 'accredited news station' has often been repeated. In January 2019, we were notified about a meme claiming that Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment,' and that it had no legal obligation to report the facts: This may not make you happy; Fox News it not an accredited news station. They have changed their accreditation to 'entertainment.' They legally don't have to provide any facts in their reporting. Fox News is in the same category as Saturday Night Live, Laugh-In, and Swamp People. You don't have to believe me, look it up yourself. While the term 'accredited news station' may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a 'news' station. In addition, a spokesperson for Fox News said the meme's claims were false. Among other issues, the meme is a bit nonsensical because it conflates over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts, as well as Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox News Channel. The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC. This is the station where you find programming such as 'The Simpsons. The Fox News Network is a cable news channel. The latter is where you'd find programming such as 'Fox & Friends' and 'Hannity.' While the FCC licenses and regulates over-the-air broadcasts, it has no authority over cable news channels. A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, 'We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.' John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming: The FCC regulates broadcast networks, since the airwaves are free and public. But cable channels, which rely on subscribers, viewers and advertisers, are beyond government control. Since cable runs through private providers, the FCC plays no role in issuing or revoking licenses, and it has no say on what the channels can air. 'The hook for (broadcast) content regulation ... is the fact that broadcasters have government-issued licenses that allow them to use the airwaves, and that it's freely available to anyone with a receiver,' said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C. 'This doesn't apply to cable networks.' The FCC does have regulations regarding the distribution of false information, but again, this only applies to over-the-air programs on networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting (but not the Fox News Channel). Furthermore, the offense would have to be pretty egregious and well-documented in order for the FCC to step in. The FCC explains on its website that it has a 'very narrow scope' to police news programs because it is prohibited by law from 'engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.' The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary. [...] The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism. Fox News (as well as CNN and MSNBC) is not an accredited news station because no regulatory body exists in the United States that has the authority to make such a classification. But while the meme is false, it is reminiscent of a genuine news story from 2017, when Ofcom, the United Kingdom's communications regulator, ruled that the shows 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' had breached their impartiality rules while reporting on the Manchester Arena bombing and President Donald Trump's travel ban: Ofcom's ruling concluded there was 'no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised' and the presenter 'did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.' Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy. We should note this ruling only pertained to specific reporting on two Fox News shows and not to the network as a whole. The ruling was also made after Sky had already pulled Fox News from the airwaves and therefore did not result in fines or in official changes to the classification of the network. In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | [
"12618-proof-02-GettyImages-1157533750.jpg"
] |
Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment. | Contradiction | In 2013, an entertainment website published a fictitious article that claimed Fox News had been reclassified as 'satire' by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the network would start displaying a disclaimer reading: 'This is not a valid news source.' While that fictitious article was clearly not genuine news, the general idea that Fox News was not an 'accredited news station' has often been repeated. In January 2019, we were notified about a meme claiming that Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment,' and that it had no legal obligation to report the facts: This may not make you happy; Fox News it not an accredited news station. They have changed their accreditation to 'entertainment.' They legally don't have to provide any facts in their reporting. Fox News is in the same category as Saturday Night Live, Laugh-In, and Swamp People. You don't have to believe me, look it up yourself. While the term 'accredited news station' may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a 'news' station. In addition, a spokesperson for Fox News said the meme's claims were false. Among other issues, the meme is a bit nonsensical because it conflates over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts, as well as Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox News Channel. The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC. This is the station where you find programming such as 'The Simpsons. The Fox News Network is a cable news channel. The latter is where you'd find programming such as 'Fox & Friends' and 'Hannity.' While the FCC licenses and regulates over-the-air broadcasts, it has no authority over cable news channels. A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, 'We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.' John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming: The FCC regulates broadcast networks, since the airwaves are free and public. But cable channels, which rely on subscribers, viewers and advertisers, are beyond government control. Since cable runs through private providers, the FCC plays no role in issuing or revoking licenses, and it has no say on what the channels can air. 'The hook for (broadcast) content regulation ... is the fact that broadcasters have government-issued licenses that allow them to use the airwaves, and that it's freely available to anyone with a receiver,' said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C. 'This doesn't apply to cable networks.' The FCC does have regulations regarding the distribution of false information, but again, this only applies to over-the-air programs on networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting (but not the Fox News Channel). Furthermore, the offense would have to be pretty egregious and well-documented in order for the FCC to step in. The FCC explains on its website that it has a 'very narrow scope' to police news programs because it is prohibited by law from 'engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.' The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary. [...] The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism. Fox News (as well as CNN and MSNBC) is not an accredited news station because no regulatory body exists in the United States that has the authority to make such a classification. But while the meme is false, it is reminiscent of a genuine news story from 2017, when Ofcom, the United Kingdom's communications regulator, ruled that the shows 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' had breached their impartiality rules while reporting on the Manchester Arena bombing and President Donald Trump's travel ban: Ofcom's ruling concluded there was 'no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised' and the presenter 'did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.' Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy. We should note this ruling only pertained to specific reporting on two Fox News shows and not to the network as a whole. The ruling was also made after Sky had already pulled Fox News from the airwaves and therefore did not result in fines or in official changes to the classification of the network. In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | [
"12618-proof-02-GettyImages-1157533750.jpg"
] |
Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment. | Contradiction | In 2013, an entertainment website published a fictitious article that claimed Fox News had been reclassified as 'satire' by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the network would start displaying a disclaimer reading: 'This is not a valid news source.' While that fictitious article was clearly not genuine news, the general idea that Fox News was not an 'accredited news station' has often been repeated. In January 2019, we were notified about a meme claiming that Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment,' and that it had no legal obligation to report the facts: This may not make you happy; Fox News it not an accredited news station. They have changed their accreditation to 'entertainment.' They legally don't have to provide any facts in their reporting. Fox News is in the same category as Saturday Night Live, Laugh-In, and Swamp People. You don't have to believe me, look it up yourself. While the term 'accredited news station' may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a 'news' station. In addition, a spokesperson for Fox News said the meme's claims were false. Among other issues, the meme is a bit nonsensical because it conflates over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts, as well as Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox News Channel. The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC. This is the station where you find programming such as 'The Simpsons. The Fox News Network is a cable news channel. The latter is where you'd find programming such as 'Fox & Friends' and 'Hannity.' While the FCC licenses and regulates over-the-air broadcasts, it has no authority over cable news channels. A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, 'We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.' John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming: The FCC regulates broadcast networks, since the airwaves are free and public. But cable channels, which rely on subscribers, viewers and advertisers, are beyond government control. Since cable runs through private providers, the FCC plays no role in issuing or revoking licenses, and it has no say on what the channels can air. 'The hook for (broadcast) content regulation ... is the fact that broadcasters have government-issued licenses that allow them to use the airwaves, and that it's freely available to anyone with a receiver,' said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C. 'This doesn't apply to cable networks.' The FCC does have regulations regarding the distribution of false information, but again, this only applies to over-the-air programs on networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting (but not the Fox News Channel). Furthermore, the offense would have to be pretty egregious and well-documented in order for the FCC to step in. The FCC explains on its website that it has a 'very narrow scope' to police news programs because it is prohibited by law from 'engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.' The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary. [...] The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism. Fox News (as well as CNN and MSNBC) is not an accredited news station because no regulatory body exists in the United States that has the authority to make such a classification. But while the meme is false, it is reminiscent of a genuine news story from 2017, when Ofcom, the United Kingdom's communications regulator, ruled that the shows 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' had breached their impartiality rules while reporting on the Manchester Arena bombing and President Donald Trump's travel ban: Ofcom's ruling concluded there was 'no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised' and the presenter 'did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.' Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy. We should note this ruling only pertained to specific reporting on two Fox News shows and not to the network as a whole. The ruling was also made after Sky had already pulled Fox News from the airwaves and therefore did not result in fines or in official changes to the classification of the network. In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | [
"12618-proof-02-GettyImages-1157533750.jpg"
] |
Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment. | Contradiction | In 2013, an entertainment website published a fictitious article that claimed Fox News had been reclassified as 'satire' by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and that the network would start displaying a disclaimer reading: 'This is not a valid news source.' While that fictitious article was clearly not genuine news, the general idea that Fox News was not an 'accredited news station' has often been repeated. In January 2019, we were notified about a meme claiming that Fox News changed its accreditation from 'news' to 'entertainment,' and that it had no legal obligation to report the facts: This may not make you happy; Fox News it not an accredited news station. They have changed their accreditation to 'entertainment.' They legally don't have to provide any facts in their reporting. Fox News is in the same category as Saturday Night Live, Laugh-In, and Swamp People. You don't have to believe me, look it up yourself. While the term 'accredited news station' may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a 'news' station. In addition, a spokesperson for Fox News said the meme's claims were false. Among other issues, the meme is a bit nonsensical because it conflates over-the-air broadcasts and cable broadcasts, as well as Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox News Channel. The Fox Broadcasting Company is an over-the-air television network licensed by the FCC. This is the station where you find programming such as 'The Simpsons. The Fox News Network is a cable news channel. The latter is where you'd find programming such as 'Fox & Friends' and 'Hannity.' While the FCC licenses and regulates over-the-air broadcasts, it has no authority over cable news channels. A spokesperson for the FCC told us that, 'We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment.' John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C., talked to the New York Daily News in 2017 after the FCC received hundreds of complaints about another cable news channel, CNN. Bergmayer explained that because cable news channels are run by private providers, the FCC has no authority to control the programming: The FCC regulates broadcast networks, since the airwaves are free and public. But cable channels, which rely on subscribers, viewers and advertisers, are beyond government control. Since cable runs through private providers, the FCC plays no role in issuing or revoking licenses, and it has no say on what the channels can air. 'The hook for (broadcast) content regulation ... is the fact that broadcasters have government-issued licenses that allow them to use the airwaves, and that it's freely available to anyone with a receiver,' said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, an intellectual property group based in Washington, D.C. 'This doesn't apply to cable networks.' The FCC does have regulations regarding the distribution of false information, but again, this only applies to over-the-air programs on networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting (but not the Fox News Channel). Furthermore, the offense would have to be pretty egregious and well-documented in order for the FCC to step in. The FCC explains on its website that it has a 'very narrow scope' to police news programs because it is prohibited by law from 'engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.' The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary. [...] The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism. Fox News (as well as CNN and MSNBC) is not an accredited news station because no regulatory body exists in the United States that has the authority to make such a classification. But while the meme is false, it is reminiscent of a genuine news story from 2017, when Ofcom, the United Kingdom's communications regulator, ruled that the shows 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' had breached their impartiality rules while reporting on the Manchester Arena bombing and President Donald Trump's travel ban: Ofcom's ruling concluded there was 'no reflection of the views of the UK government or any of the authorities or people criticised' and the presenter 'did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.' Ofcom found the programme breached rules 5.9, 5.11 and 5.12 of the British broadcasting code. These relate to adequate representation of alternative views on discussions programmes, due impartiality on matters of major political or industrial controversy, and including a wide range of significant views when dealing with major political or industrial controversy. We should note this ruling only pertained to specific reporting on two Fox News shows and not to the network as a whole. The ruling was also made after Sky had already pulled Fox News from the airwaves and therefore did not result in fines or in official changes to the classification of the network. In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | In sum, cable news networks aren't accredited as 'news' by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face. | [
"12618-proof-02-GettyImages-1157533750.jpg"
] |
A set of 'before-and-after' pictures shows a penny that shrank after it was put in a microwave. | Contradiction | Do not put metal in a microwave oven. It's a simple and important rule many people learn at a young age. But apparently it bears some repeating. In November 2019, a potentially dangerous prank started to circulate on social media in the form of before-and-after photographs. Twitter user @riikerton posted a picture of a regular-sized penny and a picture of a much smaller penny and claimed that the coin had shrunk after it was put in a microwave for about two minutes: This is what happens when you put a penny in a microwave for 2 minutes 😱😱😱 pic.twitter.com/49EZwDPJ8q - luver boi (@riikerton) November 6, 2019 These pictures do not show a microwaved penny, as pennies will not shrink if you put them in as microwave oven. The pictures likely feature a miniature penny prop, such as the one seen in the following picture from a magician trick set: Putting a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, it may cause it to get dangerously hot and start to spark. A microwave is a magnetron 'hooked up to a high voltage source.' The magnetron sends microwaves into the oven where they are absorbed into food. That's what causes our leftovers to heat up and our popcorn to pop. With metal, however, these waves are reflected, not absorbed, which can lead to sparking. Mental Floss explained: When microwaves are reflected instead of being absorbed, it can potentially create a sufficient charge density that the electrical potential in the metal object exceeds the dielectric breakdown of air. When this happens, it will result in arcing inside your microwave, from that metal to another electrical conductor with lower potential (often the wall of the microwave). In extreme cases, these electrical sparks can end up burning small holes in the metal wall. The sparks can also end up burning out the magnetron in your microwave oven or, in modern microwaves, can generate a surge that ends up damaging sensitive microelectronics, possibly killing your microwave or making it unsafe to use. While the advice to 'not put metal in a microwave' is one that should probably be heeded, the Huffington Post notes that putting a spoon inside or a burrito wrapped in foil is not going to automatically blow up your appliance: In sum, placing a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, those claiming that putting a penny in a microwave will cause it to explode are also exaggerating. Take the following tweet, for instance, which was posted in response to this 'shrinking penny' message: This picture does not show a kitchen destroyed from a microwaved penny. The picture is a couple of years old and reportedly shows the kitchen of a blogger who accidentally started a fire after leaving a pan filled with oil unattended on her stove. | In sum, placing a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, those claiming that putting a penny in a microwave will cause it to explode are also exaggerating. Take the following tweet, for instance, which was posted in response to this 'shrinking penny' message: This picture does not show a kitchen destroyed from a microwaved penny. The picture is a couple of years old and reportedly shows the kitchen of a blogger who accidentally started a fire after leaving a pan filled with oil unattended on her stove. | [
"12808-proof-05-penny_tweet.jpg"
] |
A set of 'before-and-after' pictures shows a penny that shrank after it was put in a microwave. | Contradiction | Do not put metal in a microwave oven. It's a simple and important rule many people learn at a young age. But apparently it bears some repeating. In November 2019, a potentially dangerous prank started to circulate on social media in the form of before-and-after photographs. Twitter user @riikerton posted a picture of a regular-sized penny and a picture of a much smaller penny and claimed that the coin had shrunk after it was put in a microwave for about two minutes: This is what happens when you put a penny in a microwave for 2 minutes 😱😱😱 pic.twitter.com/49EZwDPJ8q - luver boi (@riikerton) November 6, 2019 These pictures do not show a microwaved penny, as pennies will not shrink if you put them in as microwave oven. The pictures likely feature a miniature penny prop, such as the one seen in the following picture from a magician trick set: Putting a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, it may cause it to get dangerously hot and start to spark. A microwave is a magnetron 'hooked up to a high voltage source.' The magnetron sends microwaves into the oven where they are absorbed into food. That's what causes our leftovers to heat up and our popcorn to pop. With metal, however, these waves are reflected, not absorbed, which can lead to sparking. Mental Floss explained: When microwaves are reflected instead of being absorbed, it can potentially create a sufficient charge density that the electrical potential in the metal object exceeds the dielectric breakdown of air. When this happens, it will result in arcing inside your microwave, from that metal to another electrical conductor with lower potential (often the wall of the microwave). In extreme cases, these electrical sparks can end up burning small holes in the metal wall. The sparks can also end up burning out the magnetron in your microwave oven or, in modern microwaves, can generate a surge that ends up damaging sensitive microelectronics, possibly killing your microwave or making it unsafe to use. While the advice to 'not put metal in a microwave' is one that should probably be heeded, the Huffington Post notes that putting a spoon inside or a burrito wrapped in foil is not going to automatically blow up your appliance: In sum, placing a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, those claiming that putting a penny in a microwave will cause it to explode are also exaggerating. Take the following tweet, for instance, which was posted in response to this 'shrinking penny' message: This picture does not show a kitchen destroyed from a microwaved penny. The picture is a couple of years old and reportedly shows the kitchen of a blogger who accidentally started a fire after leaving a pan filled with oil unattended on her stove. | In sum, placing a penny in a microwave is not going to cause it to shrink. However, those claiming that putting a penny in a microwave will cause it to explode are also exaggerating. Take the following tweet, for instance, which was posted in response to this 'shrinking penny' message: This picture does not show a kitchen destroyed from a microwaved penny. The picture is a couple of years old and reportedly shows the kitchen of a blogger who accidentally started a fire after leaving a pan filled with oil unattended on her stove. | [
"12808-proof-05-penny_tweet.jpg"
] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
In June 2016, Michigan residents lost the 'right to farm,' keep chickens, or maintain bee hives due to a change in existing law. | Contradiction | On 20 June 2016 the web site Check Out the Healthy World published an article reporting that Michigan residents had lost the 'right to farm ... last week': Michigan residents lost their 'right to farm' this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes 'effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.' Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan's Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock. 'The Michigan Agriculture Commission passed up an opportunity to support one of the hottest trends in food in Michigan - public demand for access to more local, healthy, sustainable food,' Gail Philbin told MLive. Meanwhile, neighboring Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. The Michigan Farm Bureau endorsed the new regulatory changes. Matthew Kapp, government relations specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, told MLive that the members weighed in and felt that people raising livestock need to conform to local zoning ordinances. The Farm Bureau did not feel Michigan's Right To Farm Act was meant to protect the smaller farms, and ultimately the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development agreed. A fundamental inaccuracy was apparent at the bottom of the page. Check Out the Healthy World cited the web site Inquisitr as a source, but in fact simply copied an article from that site in its entirety - an article that was originally published back in May 2014. So it was readily apparent that no such changes in the law or loss of farming rights occurred in June 2016. Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) maintains a web page hosting a link to the law in question, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list. The latter [PDF] explains the Right to Farm Act [PDF], enacted in 1981, one purpose of which was to establish voluntary guidelines that farmers could follow in order to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits filed by new residents moving into rural areas that had been subject to rapid housing development: The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981. In the past century, people with limited understanding of farming were moving into rural areas. Typical farming conditions (dust, odors, etc.) and activities on nearby farms were unacceptable to new residents and sometimes nuisance suits were filed against the farmer. The Right to Farm Act was created in response to an increase in complaints and lawsuits. The Act calls for the creation of a set of Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) and provides an affirmative defense in nuisance lawsuits brought against the farmer by neighbors when the farmer is conforming to GAAMPs or when the farm existed prior to changes in land use in the areas surrounding the farm. That document also addressed changes made to that law in May 2014, around the time the original Inquisitr article (which held that the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development had acted to exclude small farming endeavors from laws originally allowing for such activities) appeared: In May 2014, the Commission approved the addition of a Category 4 for site selection within the GAAMPS. Category 4 sites, defined by the GAAMPs, are locations that are primarily residential and don't allow agricultural uses by right. Under the Site Selection GAAMP, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development [MDARD] still will determine whether a site is primarily residential, which by definition are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or a non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. We contacted MDARD for clarification on the scope of Michigan's Right to Farm Act, as well as what aspects of it changed (or didn't change) in May 2014. A representative for MDARD told us that misinformation was rife on social media with respect to those changes and the provisions of the act in general, and she pointed us to a 13 May 2014 press release separating fact from fiction: Changes over two years ago to the voluntary set of guidelines used to support the state's Right to Farm Act have created a maelstrom of misunderstanding and misinformation about what the law does and does not do, including what protections it may or may not afford Michigan's farming community. That misunderstanding continues to be amplified by social media reports which vastly misrepresent the facts and the potential impacts, especially as it relates to small and urban farmers. The release clarified that changes to the state's Right to Farm Act is specific to commercial agriculture, not small family farmers raising food and animals for their own consumption, and the law's original purpose was to provide protections for rural farmers due to an influx of previously urban dwellers unaccustomed to the ambiance of farm communities: Since the beginning, the Right to Farm Act has been specific to commercial agriculture, both small and large. Raising chickens or other food for your own family's consumption has never been within the scope of the Right to Farm Act and that has not changed. The Right to Farm Act is a state law created in 1981 to address urban encroachment into rural areas because the folks moving into the country didn't like the smells, sounds, dirt, etc. that come with agriculture and farming practices. The Act provides an affirmative defense to nuisance lawsuits if farmers are in conformance with the relevant Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practice (GAAMP) standards. With respect to the May 2014 changes, MDARD emphasized that no law had ever allowed the keeping of livestock everywhere in Michigan. But since some non-rural, residential communities had passed regulations allowing residents to keep farm animals and others had not, the Right to Farm Act's guidelines were modified to create a category of site that encompassed such non-farm areas: It's important to remember that the Right to Farm Act has never provided blanket permission to locate farm animals in every corner of Michigan. The Livestock Site Selection GAAMP places conditions on the location of farm animals to reduce the risk of nuisance complaints. The difference over the past few years is that individuals are bringing farm animals into existing, primarily residential areas increasing the potential for conflict and nuisance complaints. The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development made revisions to the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP adding Category 4 sites, which are locations that are primarily residential, don't allow agricultural uses by right and are, therefore, not suitable for farm animals for purposes of the Right to Farm Act. Under the Livestock Site Selection GAAMP, primarily residential areas are sites with more than 13 non-farm homes within an eighth of a mile of the livestock facility or one non-farm home within 250 feet of the livestock facility. However, local communities can decide to allow farm animals under these circumstances. This decision was not made in haste. The Commission took hours of public testimony, held a number of meetings and has been looking into this issue for several years. In recent years, there has been increased interest in having a small number of livestock in non-rural areas. While more than 40 communities in Michigan have ordinances allowing for the keeping of livestock in non-rural residential areas, many do not, resulting in increased conflict between municipalities and livestock owners in these areas. In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | In short, Michigan's Right to Farm Act wasn't drastically changed in June 2016 (or May 2014, for that matter), nor did it strip Michigan residents of their 'right to farm' or to raise animals such as chickens and bees. Its voluntary standards were merely updated to recognize a new category of site: primarily residential, non-agricultural communities that are not suitable for farm animals. | [] |
Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003. | Contradiction | One bone of contention between 2016 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is that she, famously, voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a member of the U.S. Senate, and he, supposedly, opposed it. Trump made much of his alleged opposition to the Iraq War throughout the presidential campaign, calling the incursion a 'mistake.' During a Republican debate in February 2016, Trump said, 'I'm the only one on this stage that said, 'Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.' Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong.' In June 2016, Trump declared that the Iraq War set in motion a chain of events that led to the rise of the terrorist group ISIS, saying that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of it was indicative of her poor judgment. 'In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | [] |
Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003. | Contradiction | One bone of contention between 2016 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is that she, famously, voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a member of the U.S. Senate, and he, supposedly, opposed it. Trump made much of his alleged opposition to the Iraq War throughout the presidential campaign, calling the incursion a 'mistake.' During a Republican debate in February 2016, Trump said, 'I'm the only one on this stage that said, 'Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.' Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong.' In June 2016, Trump declared that the Iraq War set in motion a chain of events that led to the rise of the terrorist group ISIS, saying that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of it was indicative of her poor judgment. 'In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | [] |
Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003. | Contradiction | One bone of contention between 2016 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is that she, famously, voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a member of the U.S. Senate, and he, supposedly, opposed it. Trump made much of his alleged opposition to the Iraq War throughout the presidential campaign, calling the incursion a 'mistake.' During a Republican debate in February 2016, Trump said, 'I'm the only one on this stage that said, 'Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.' Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong.' In June 2016, Trump declared that the Iraq War set in motion a chain of events that led to the rise of the terrorist group ISIS, saying that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of it was indicative of her poor judgment. 'In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | [] |
Donald Trump expressed strong opposition to the war in Iraq before it began in 2003. | Contradiction | One bone of contention between 2016 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is that she, famously, voted in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a member of the U.S. Senate, and he, supposedly, opposed it. Trump made much of his alleged opposition to the Iraq War throughout the presidential campaign, calling the incursion a 'mistake.' During a Republican debate in February 2016, Trump said, 'I'm the only one on this stage that said, 'Do not go into Iraq, do not attack Iraq.' Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong.' In June 2016, Trump declared that the Iraq War set in motion a chain of events that led to the rise of the terrorist group ISIS, saying that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of it was indicative of her poor judgment. 'In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | In short, Hillary Clinton's tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another,' Trump said. 'It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.' Despite mainstream media challenges to the accuracy of the latter claim, Trump repeated it during the first presidential debate in September 2016. 'I was against the Iraq war,' he fired back after moderator Lester Holt said he Trump had supported it. 'The record shows that I'm right.' Is he? Does the record show that Trump was against the Iraq War before it started? Let's examine his public statements, beginning with his first known comment on the notion of invading Iraq, made during a 2002 radio talk show interview. The Howard Stern Show, 11 September 2002 (six months before the war): STERN: Are you for invading Iraq? TRUMP: Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. If that remark wasn't exactly a wholehearted endorsement of the notion of invading Iraq, it clearly wasn't an expression of opposition to the idea either. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 31 January 2003 (two months before the war): In January 2003, with an invasion of Iraq looming, Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto asked Trump what kind of advice he would give to President Bush. Trump waffled, expressing neither support nor opposition to the concept of invading Iraq and offering no more cogent an opinion than that President Bush should make up his mind one way or the other: CAVUTO: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say? TRUMP: Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we're going in, we're not going in, the - you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur? He would go and attack. He wouldn't talk. We have to - you know, it's sort like either do it or don't do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we're going to attack, what routes we're taking, what kind of planes we're using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I've never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how - telling the enemy how we're going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous. CAVUTO: Well, the problem right there. TRUMP: Either you attack or you don't attack. CAVUTO: The problem there, Donald, is you're watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox. TRUMP: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different - I don't know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is - just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don't do it, or you - but I just - or if you don't do it, just don't talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it. CAVUTO: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us. TRUMP: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's - I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned. Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, 21 March 2003 (one day after the war began): One day into the invasion of Iraq, Trump appeared again on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program. He again did not criticize or condemn the war effort, calling it instead a 'tremendous success': CAVUTO: What do you make of, just, how Wall Street's been reacting to what our military guys have been doing? TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're gonna see after the war is over. Esquire Magazine interview, August 2004 (18 months after the war began): Here, finally, are Trump's first published remarks critical of the Iraq War, which appeared almost a year and a half after the military action began. By then, this was not a particularly controversial stand to take: Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing! The record shows that Donald Trump's public stand against the Iraq War did not occur until August 2004, long after the war was underway, and only after he had on multiple previous occasions expressed either support for the war or non-committal opinions about its merits. The record does not support his contention that he was against the Iraq War 'from the beginning.' | [] |
U.S. President-elect Joe Biden created the 'Office of the President Elect' to convince Americans the 2020 elections results were final when they weren't. | 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. Less than one week after polls closed in the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden began discussing health care and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic at news conferences. Photos and videos of the highly publicized events in Biden's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, showed him on stages decorated with posters reading, 'Office of the President Elect.' Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, and their allies promoted the briefings and a website titled 'buildbackbetter.com' as evidence of their work preparing for the White House before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, 2021. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and his Republican supporters refused to acknowledge such efforts and blocked government officials from cooperating with the Biden-Harris team. Trump and his inner circle spewed misinformation in an attempt to convince Americans the country's constitutionally mandated elections process - which requires a group of electors to officially cast votes for president after Election Day - provided Trump the time to use court systems or other means to defy the popular vote. (We explain the Electoral College and the process for certifying election results after news media declare winners in presidential races here.) As part of that messaging strategy, a claim surfaced on social media alleging Biden created the 'Office of President Elect' to nefariously convince Americans that Trump had no chance at another term. Sebastian Gorka, a former adviser to Trump who hosts a conservative talk show, for example, posted the below-displayed tweet: But that was not true. Firstly, Biden did not create the 'Office of the President Elect,' nor was he the first person to address the country under that title. A photographer for Getty Images captured Trump on Jan. 11, 2017, speaking at a podium decorated with the same phrase in the weeks after his 2016 victory over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Xinhua/Gary Hershorn via Getty Images Next, we sought evidence to confirm or deny that Biden was using the office as a political strategy to mislead Americans about voting results. Looking at states' Secretary of States' websites, which are databases of official voter information, news media announced Biden secured the majority of the nation's electoral votes - 270 - on Nov. 7. That announcement kicked off a series of steps outlined in the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws to officiate Biden as America's 46th President. Two days later, Biden addressed the country at a podium decorated with a sign that read 'the Office of the President Elect.' Opponents called such events premature since Trump had not conceded defeat and states had yet to certify voter tallies. However, it was not unusual for state election officials to take days, or weeks, to certify voter tallies and designate electors, and that process continues under federal laws regardless of a losing candidate's willingness to acknowledge defeat. No evidence showed Biden's group of officials, aids, and other staff - otherwise known as the Biden-Harris transition team - used the decorations reading 'the Office of the President Elect' to try to convince people that he had illegitimately won the presidency. Rather, it appeared to be a marketing strategy for its efforts to plan staffing and policy agendas before Inauguration Day. We reached out to the Presidential Transitional Center, a nonprofit that brings together politicians from both political parties to develop best practices for presidential transitions, which provided us the following analysis: During the period between Election Day and the inauguration, presidents-elect must shift from campaigning to governing. As our analysis reveals, this traditionally entails a mix of activities that include personnel announcements, policy development, and stakeholder, media and public engagement. At least one federal document obtained by Snopes - a memorandum of understanding between the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, and Biden's team - said the 'Office of President Elect' was synonymous with efforts by 'President Elect [Biden] and Vice President-elect [Harris].' Yet no federal law establishes 'the Office of the President Elect' as a formal section of government. Rather, federal agencies appear to accept the office as an informal title for teams working on behalf of presidents-elect (as shown via the above-displayed document), carrying out efforts under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act. That congressional package outlines steps for the GSA to green light millions of federal dollars to the president-elect's transition team to set up operations. In an email to Snopes, researchers with the Presidential Transitional Center wrote: [There] is no formal office of the president-elect, however president-elect support is traditionally its own office within the larger transition team. This office coordinates the president-elect's schedule and travel, including communications, press engagements, and the like. In other words, initiatives promoted by Biden and Harris under the title of 'Office of the President Elect' were part of a larger effort by their transition team to prepare for their new jobs, not a nefarious conspiracy to undermine Trump. Additionally, the researchers told Snopes buildbackbetter.com would turn into a government-run website if, or when, the administrator of the GSA, a Trump appointee, ascertained the 'apparent successful candidate' - or formally recognized Biden as the election's winner. That had not happened as of this writing, and the agency did not explain why that was the case. The administrative delay dragged on as the Trump campaign banked on several lawsuits alleging schemes to undermine ballot casting or counting and attempted to energize his loyal supporters. A team comprised of Trump senior officials and campaign aids told journalists those lawsuits were less about winning arguments over specific voter tallies and more about forestalling 'a loss he can't quite grasp,' per The Associated Press. In sum, considering the visual evidence of Trump addressing the country using the title 'Office of the President Elect,' as well as acknowledgment from researchers of presidential transitions that the office informally represents work by transition teams, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, considering the visual evidence of Trump addressing the country using the title 'Office of the President Elect,' as well as acknowledgment from researchers of presidential transitions that the office informally represents work by transition teams, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"12934-proof-03-GettyImages-631495884-scaled.jpg"
] |
U.S. President-elect Joe Biden created the 'Office of the President Elect' to convince Americans the 2020 elections results were final when they weren't. | 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. Less than one week after polls closed in the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden began discussing health care and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic at news conferences. Photos and videos of the highly publicized events in Biden's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, showed him on stages decorated with posters reading, 'Office of the President Elect.' Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, and their allies promoted the briefings and a website titled 'buildbackbetter.com' as evidence of their work preparing for the White House before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, 2021. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and his Republican supporters refused to acknowledge such efforts and blocked government officials from cooperating with the Biden-Harris team. Trump and his inner circle spewed misinformation in an attempt to convince Americans the country's constitutionally mandated elections process - which requires a group of electors to officially cast votes for president after Election Day - provided Trump the time to use court systems or other means to defy the popular vote. (We explain the Electoral College and the process for certifying election results after news media declare winners in presidential races here.) As part of that messaging strategy, a claim surfaced on social media alleging Biden created the 'Office of President Elect' to nefariously convince Americans that Trump had no chance at another term. Sebastian Gorka, a former adviser to Trump who hosts a conservative talk show, for example, posted the below-displayed tweet: But that was not true. Firstly, Biden did not create the 'Office of the President Elect,' nor was he the first person to address the country under that title. A photographer for Getty Images captured Trump on Jan. 11, 2017, speaking at a podium decorated with the same phrase in the weeks after his 2016 victory over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Xinhua/Gary Hershorn via Getty Images Next, we sought evidence to confirm or deny that Biden was using the office as a political strategy to mislead Americans about voting results. Looking at states' Secretary of States' websites, which are databases of official voter information, news media announced Biden secured the majority of the nation's electoral votes - 270 - on Nov. 7. That announcement kicked off a series of steps outlined in the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws to officiate Biden as America's 46th President. Two days later, Biden addressed the country at a podium decorated with a sign that read 'the Office of the President Elect.' Opponents called such events premature since Trump had not conceded defeat and states had yet to certify voter tallies. However, it was not unusual for state election officials to take days, or weeks, to certify voter tallies and designate electors, and that process continues under federal laws regardless of a losing candidate's willingness to acknowledge defeat. No evidence showed Biden's group of officials, aids, and other staff - otherwise known as the Biden-Harris transition team - used the decorations reading 'the Office of the President Elect' to try to convince people that he had illegitimately won the presidency. Rather, it appeared to be a marketing strategy for its efforts to plan staffing and policy agendas before Inauguration Day. We reached out to the Presidential Transitional Center, a nonprofit that brings together politicians from both political parties to develop best practices for presidential transitions, which provided us the following analysis: During the period between Election Day and the inauguration, presidents-elect must shift from campaigning to governing. As our analysis reveals, this traditionally entails a mix of activities that include personnel announcements, policy development, and stakeholder, media and public engagement. At least one federal document obtained by Snopes - a memorandum of understanding between the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, and Biden's team - said the 'Office of President Elect' was synonymous with efforts by 'President Elect [Biden] and Vice President-elect [Harris].' Yet no federal law establishes 'the Office of the President Elect' as a formal section of government. Rather, federal agencies appear to accept the office as an informal title for teams working on behalf of presidents-elect (as shown via the above-displayed document), carrying out efforts under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act. That congressional package outlines steps for the GSA to green light millions of federal dollars to the president-elect's transition team to set up operations. In an email to Snopes, researchers with the Presidential Transitional Center wrote: [There] is no formal office of the president-elect, however president-elect support is traditionally its own office within the larger transition team. This office coordinates the president-elect's schedule and travel, including communications, press engagements, and the like. In other words, initiatives promoted by Biden and Harris under the title of 'Office of the President Elect' were part of a larger effort by their transition team to prepare for their new jobs, not a nefarious conspiracy to undermine Trump. Additionally, the researchers told Snopes buildbackbetter.com would turn into a government-run website if, or when, the administrator of the GSA, a Trump appointee, ascertained the 'apparent successful candidate' - or formally recognized Biden as the election's winner. That had not happened as of this writing, and the agency did not explain why that was the case. The administrative delay dragged on as the Trump campaign banked on several lawsuits alleging schemes to undermine ballot casting or counting and attempted to energize his loyal supporters. A team comprised of Trump senior officials and campaign aids told journalists those lawsuits were less about winning arguments over specific voter tallies and more about forestalling 'a loss he can't quite grasp,' per The Associated Press. In sum, considering the visual evidence of Trump addressing the country using the title 'Office of the President Elect,' as well as acknowledgment from researchers of presidential transitions that the office informally represents work by transition teams, we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, considering the visual evidence of Trump addressing the country using the title 'Office of the President Elect,' as well as acknowledgment from researchers of presidential transitions that the office informally represents work by transition teams, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"12934-proof-03-GettyImages-631495884-scaled.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows Lev Parnas at a family birthday party with Donald Trump in 1990. | Contradiction | On Jan. 16, 2020, Lev Parnas, the American businessman who allegedly worked with U.S. President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the Ukraine to investigate the president's political rivals, appeared on 'The Rachel Maddow Show' to tell his version of events that led to the president's impeachment. While Trump would later say 'I don't know who this man is,' the photographic record appears to tell a different story. As Parnas' name moved from obscurity to infamy, photographs showing Parnas with various members of the Trump family, the Trump administration, and the president himself started to circulate on social media. While most of these images are genuine, some social media users attempted to strengthen the connection between Trump and Parnas by sharing a photograph that allegedly showed Parnas and Trump at a family birthday party when their children were young: The claim that the man in this photograph is Lev Parnas is not based on any credible information. This claim is based solely on the notion that the man in the photograph bears a passing resemblance to Parnas. However, Parnas' name was not attached to this picture until close to three decades after it was taken. And from what we can tell, Parnas is too young to be the man pictured here. This photograph was not taken at a party for 'Lev's kid.' It was actually taken in 1990 at a birthday party for Trump's son, Eric, who had just turned 6. The picture first received media attention in 2017 with the release of the book 'Raising Trump' by Ivana Trump, the president's first wife. ABC News published this photograph in an article about the book with the caption: 'Ivana Trump shares a family photo from Eric Trump's sixth birthday party at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1990.' Here's the full photograph: Parnas was born in 1972 and would have been approximately 18 when this photograph was taken. The man in this photograph, however, appears to be much older than a teenager. By comparison, Donald Trump, who was born in 1946, was approximately 44 when this photograph was taken. Some social media users have pointed to a report in the New Yorker to bolster the claim that Parnas is indeed the man in this photograph. While the The New Yorker reported that Parnas started selling Trump Organization co-ops for Kings Highway Realty when he was 16, there's no indication that Parnas had a familiar relationship with the Trump family at that time. In fact, Parnas said that while he bumped into Trump occasionally at events in New York over the years, he didn't get to know the president until the 2016 presidential campaign (emphasis ours): Parnas soon became a regular at Trump's rallies and other gatherings. 'I started donating. We started to help raise money,' he said. Gradually, Parnas said that he got to know other Trump donors, including Tommy Hicks, Jr., a private-equity investor in Texas who is close to Donald Trump, Jr. (Hicks has since become the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.)'We became one big family,' Parnas said. 'You got to understand, he didn't have a real campaign, a traditional campaign. It was make-it-up, you know. Like him or not, you understand what it is. It was more, like, you know, we'd bump into each other constantly because it was all the same people, there were not that many of us.' Parnas told me that he 'bumped into' Trump 'plenty of times' at events in New York over the years, but that they didn't get to know each other until the 2016 campaign. (Trump recently distanced himself from Parnas and [businessman Igor] Fruman, saying, 'I don't know those gentlemen. Now, it's possible I have a picture with them, because I have a picture with everybody.') In sum, the claim that the above-displayed picture shows Parnas with the Trumps at a family birthday party in the 1990s is not supported by evidence. This claim is based solely on the notion that the pictured man and Parnas bear a passing resemblance to one another. However, Parnas was only 18 at the time this photograph was taken (while the pictured man looks much older), his name wasn't attached to this image until it became a political weapon 30 years later, and Parnas himself said that he didn't get to know Trump until 2015. | In sum, the claim that the above-displayed picture shows Parnas with the Trumps at a family birthday party in the 1990s is not supported by evidence. This claim is based solely on the notion that the pictured man and Parnas bear a passing resemblance to one another. However, Parnas was only 18 at the time this photograph was taken (while the pictured man looks much older), his name wasn't attached to this image until it became a political weapon 30 years later, and Parnas himself said that he didn't get to know Trump until 2015. | [
"13024-proof-02-ivana-trump-family2-ht-mem-171009_16x9_992.jpg"
] |
A leaked Pentagon video reveals a government plot to vaccinate people against thoughts, ideas, and religion. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2015, the disreputable web site Natural News published an article titled '600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water.' According to the article, a 'leaked Pentagon video' revealed the government had tested a mind-control vaccine dubbed FunVax (fundamentalist vaccine) on unwitting civilian populations. The claim stated the vaccine was dispensed through large-scale spraying, vehicle exhaust, food, and water. (It should be noted with the exception of nasally administered flu vaccines, most vaccines are still dispensed through far more unwieldy syringes.) Central to the rumors were a single YouTube video described as a 'leaked Pentagon presentation' and a link to a website on which those plans were purportedly detailed, like this rumor we collected from the internet: Pentagon FunVax presentation on how the military can spread a virus and use a vaccine to extinguish 'undesirable human behavior'. Behavior modification through vaccination. Say goodbye to your free will. The article explained while these claims have circulated since at least 2011 (the date of the video's publication on YouTube), an increase in 'medical police state' activity had enabled people to 'connect the dots' about the covert deployment of this mind control vaccine: As you'll see in the document and video below, the vaccine was intended from the start to be deployed against civilian populations, and 600 strains of infectious viruses were tested on human subjects. One of the transmission vectors documented in the testing exploited an influenza strain to spread the mind-infecting virus as a pandemic. The point of all this is to infect the minds of the population and transform people into what the government calls 'normal.' From the government's point of view, of course, 'normal' means 'obedient and mindless.' This is all described in a video and a document that surfaced several years ago but which are only now beginning to connect the dots as the medical police state in America accelerates to insane levels of aggression against the population. See recent stories on medical kidnapping in Arkansas and CPS kidnapping of children in Arizona for starters. The video that supposedly exposed the FunVax plot has been circulating the Internet since at least 2011, yet no event or circumstance has validated the claims made in or about it since its first appearance, and recent interest in the clip came about solely through its 'discovery' by Natural News. The document appended as supplemental proof to the long-circulating video [PDF] is hosted on wanttoknow.info, a site devoted to discussion and dispersal of conspiracy-related material. While legitimate documents can and do sometimes emerge through what appear initially to be unreliable channels, no source is given for this 'quarterly FunVax report' dated to June 2007. On the site itself, the poster of the document admitted the video and the document were possibly faked and no evidence corroborating their authenticity was known: Though this may sound like some bizarre science fiction novel, the four-minute Pentagon video presentation and official FunVax report below show that this vaccine against fundamentalism is actively being tested for implementation. As it has been a few years since this date of this video and report, it is entirely possible this program has already been started. There is some possibility that the above video and document are faked. But if they are, it is very intelligent disinformation. Who would spend all of the time and money required to come up with such a sophisticated and coherent story? And why? Knowing how science and the military often work together, a program like this is all too possible. I once attended a lecture by Al Gore's science advisor in which he said he had been invited to see some of the most secret biological research programs being undertaken by the U.S. military. He said it gave him nightmares for months. It's likely true a number of covert programs would send chills down the spines of most Americans were they made privy to the nuts and bolts of strategic defense planning, biological or otherwise. As to who might be responsible for such disinformation, that could be anyone's guess. However, right around the time FunVax conspiracy theories began to circulate, an active Kickstarter campaign titled 'FunVax - A Film About the Conspiracy' was launched by an individual named Ryan Harper. (The campaign ultimately failed to achieve its funding goal.) Harper is also the registrant for the domain FunVax.com, a site ostensibly created to promote the film. Notably, much of the speculation about FunVax occurred in 2011 and 2012 (Harper registered the domain in April 2011), and almost all claims made about it lead back to Harper and the film project. The clip in question was not 'leaked' until September 2011, making the chronology of the FunVax conspiracy even more suspicious. While it's possible a separate source disseminated the video as Harper endeavored to fund and film his documentary, there's also no compelling evidence any information about FunVax originated from a source other than Harper himself. As for that video, it too has provoked skepticism even among those who've not examined the source of the claims. All identifying details (such as date and context) were supplied by its original poster, and the low resolution of the footage makes it difficult to determine whether the audio portion was tacked on to an extant video from another source entirely. Ultimately, those objections are secondary to the logistically and scientifically implausible aspects of the FunVax rumor. First and foremost, while the 'God gene' is a popular bit of pop science, it isn't supported by any peer-reviewed evidence: Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist's name was Dean Hamer. In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | [] |
A leaked Pentagon video reveals a government plot to vaccinate people against thoughts, ideas, and religion. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2015, the disreputable web site Natural News published an article titled '600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water.' According to the article, a 'leaked Pentagon video' revealed the government had tested a mind-control vaccine dubbed FunVax (fundamentalist vaccine) on unwitting civilian populations. The claim stated the vaccine was dispensed through large-scale spraying, vehicle exhaust, food, and water. (It should be noted with the exception of nasally administered flu vaccines, most vaccines are still dispensed through far more unwieldy syringes.) Central to the rumors were a single YouTube video described as a 'leaked Pentagon presentation' and a link to a website on which those plans were purportedly detailed, like this rumor we collected from the internet: Pentagon FunVax presentation on how the military can spread a virus and use a vaccine to extinguish 'undesirable human behavior'. Behavior modification through vaccination. Say goodbye to your free will. The article explained while these claims have circulated since at least 2011 (the date of the video's publication on YouTube), an increase in 'medical police state' activity had enabled people to 'connect the dots' about the covert deployment of this mind control vaccine: As you'll see in the document and video below, the vaccine was intended from the start to be deployed against civilian populations, and 600 strains of infectious viruses were tested on human subjects. One of the transmission vectors documented in the testing exploited an influenza strain to spread the mind-infecting virus as a pandemic. The point of all this is to infect the minds of the population and transform people into what the government calls 'normal.' From the government's point of view, of course, 'normal' means 'obedient and mindless.' This is all described in a video and a document that surfaced several years ago but which are only now beginning to connect the dots as the medical police state in America accelerates to insane levels of aggression against the population. See recent stories on medical kidnapping in Arkansas and CPS kidnapping of children in Arizona for starters. The video that supposedly exposed the FunVax plot has been circulating the Internet since at least 2011, yet no event or circumstance has validated the claims made in or about it since its first appearance, and recent interest in the clip came about solely through its 'discovery' by Natural News. The document appended as supplemental proof to the long-circulating video [PDF] is hosted on wanttoknow.info, a site devoted to discussion and dispersal of conspiracy-related material. While legitimate documents can and do sometimes emerge through what appear initially to be unreliable channels, no source is given for this 'quarterly FunVax report' dated to June 2007. On the site itself, the poster of the document admitted the video and the document were possibly faked and no evidence corroborating their authenticity was known: Though this may sound like some bizarre science fiction novel, the four-minute Pentagon video presentation and official FunVax report below show that this vaccine against fundamentalism is actively being tested for implementation. As it has been a few years since this date of this video and report, it is entirely possible this program has already been started. There is some possibility that the above video and document are faked. But if they are, it is very intelligent disinformation. Who would spend all of the time and money required to come up with such a sophisticated and coherent story? And why? Knowing how science and the military often work together, a program like this is all too possible. I once attended a lecture by Al Gore's science advisor in which he said he had been invited to see some of the most secret biological research programs being undertaken by the U.S. military. He said it gave him nightmares for months. It's likely true a number of covert programs would send chills down the spines of most Americans were they made privy to the nuts and bolts of strategic defense planning, biological or otherwise. As to who might be responsible for such disinformation, that could be anyone's guess. However, right around the time FunVax conspiracy theories began to circulate, an active Kickstarter campaign titled 'FunVax - A Film About the Conspiracy' was launched by an individual named Ryan Harper. (The campaign ultimately failed to achieve its funding goal.) Harper is also the registrant for the domain FunVax.com, a site ostensibly created to promote the film. Notably, much of the speculation about FunVax occurred in 2011 and 2012 (Harper registered the domain in April 2011), and almost all claims made about it lead back to Harper and the film project. The clip in question was not 'leaked' until September 2011, making the chronology of the FunVax conspiracy even more suspicious. While it's possible a separate source disseminated the video as Harper endeavored to fund and film his documentary, there's also no compelling evidence any information about FunVax originated from a source other than Harper himself. As for that video, it too has provoked skepticism even among those who've not examined the source of the claims. All identifying details (such as date and context) were supplied by its original poster, and the low resolution of the footage makes it difficult to determine whether the audio portion was tacked on to an extant video from another source entirely. Ultimately, those objections are secondary to the logistically and scientifically implausible aspects of the FunVax rumor. First and foremost, while the 'God gene' is a popular bit of pop science, it isn't supported by any peer-reviewed evidence: Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist's name was Dean Hamer. In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | [] |
A leaked Pentagon video reveals a government plot to vaccinate people against thoughts, ideas, and religion. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2015, the disreputable web site Natural News published an article titled '600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water.' According to the article, a 'leaked Pentagon video' revealed the government had tested a mind-control vaccine dubbed FunVax (fundamentalist vaccine) on unwitting civilian populations. The claim stated the vaccine was dispensed through large-scale spraying, vehicle exhaust, food, and water. (It should be noted with the exception of nasally administered flu vaccines, most vaccines are still dispensed through far more unwieldy syringes.) Central to the rumors were a single YouTube video described as a 'leaked Pentagon presentation' and a link to a website on which those plans were purportedly detailed, like this rumor we collected from the internet: Pentagon FunVax presentation on how the military can spread a virus and use a vaccine to extinguish 'undesirable human behavior'. Behavior modification through vaccination. Say goodbye to your free will. The article explained while these claims have circulated since at least 2011 (the date of the video's publication on YouTube), an increase in 'medical police state' activity had enabled people to 'connect the dots' about the covert deployment of this mind control vaccine: As you'll see in the document and video below, the vaccine was intended from the start to be deployed against civilian populations, and 600 strains of infectious viruses were tested on human subjects. One of the transmission vectors documented in the testing exploited an influenza strain to spread the mind-infecting virus as a pandemic. The point of all this is to infect the minds of the population and transform people into what the government calls 'normal.' From the government's point of view, of course, 'normal' means 'obedient and mindless.' This is all described in a video and a document that surfaced several years ago but which are only now beginning to connect the dots as the medical police state in America accelerates to insane levels of aggression against the population. See recent stories on medical kidnapping in Arkansas and CPS kidnapping of children in Arizona for starters. The video that supposedly exposed the FunVax plot has been circulating the Internet since at least 2011, yet no event or circumstance has validated the claims made in or about it since its first appearance, and recent interest in the clip came about solely through its 'discovery' by Natural News. The document appended as supplemental proof to the long-circulating video [PDF] is hosted on wanttoknow.info, a site devoted to discussion and dispersal of conspiracy-related material. While legitimate documents can and do sometimes emerge through what appear initially to be unreliable channels, no source is given for this 'quarterly FunVax report' dated to June 2007. On the site itself, the poster of the document admitted the video and the document were possibly faked and no evidence corroborating their authenticity was known: Though this may sound like some bizarre science fiction novel, the four-minute Pentagon video presentation and official FunVax report below show that this vaccine against fundamentalism is actively being tested for implementation. As it has been a few years since this date of this video and report, it is entirely possible this program has already been started. There is some possibility that the above video and document are faked. But if they are, it is very intelligent disinformation. Who would spend all of the time and money required to come up with such a sophisticated and coherent story? And why? Knowing how science and the military often work together, a program like this is all too possible. I once attended a lecture by Al Gore's science advisor in which he said he had been invited to see some of the most secret biological research programs being undertaken by the U.S. military. He said it gave him nightmares for months. It's likely true a number of covert programs would send chills down the spines of most Americans were they made privy to the nuts and bolts of strategic defense planning, biological or otherwise. As to who might be responsible for such disinformation, that could be anyone's guess. However, right around the time FunVax conspiracy theories began to circulate, an active Kickstarter campaign titled 'FunVax - A Film About the Conspiracy' was launched by an individual named Ryan Harper. (The campaign ultimately failed to achieve its funding goal.) Harper is also the registrant for the domain FunVax.com, a site ostensibly created to promote the film. Notably, much of the speculation about FunVax occurred in 2011 and 2012 (Harper registered the domain in April 2011), and almost all claims made about it lead back to Harper and the film project. The clip in question was not 'leaked' until September 2011, making the chronology of the FunVax conspiracy even more suspicious. While it's possible a separate source disseminated the video as Harper endeavored to fund and film his documentary, there's also no compelling evidence any information about FunVax originated from a source other than Harper himself. As for that video, it too has provoked skepticism even among those who've not examined the source of the claims. All identifying details (such as date and context) were supplied by its original poster, and the low resolution of the footage makes it difficult to determine whether the audio portion was tacked on to an extant video from another source entirely. Ultimately, those objections are secondary to the logistically and scientifically implausible aspects of the FunVax rumor. First and foremost, while the 'God gene' is a popular bit of pop science, it isn't supported by any peer-reviewed evidence: Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist's name was Dean Hamer. In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | [] |
A leaked Pentagon video reveals a government plot to vaccinate people against thoughts, ideas, and religion. | Contradiction | On 20 January 2015, the disreputable web site Natural News published an article titled '600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water.' According to the article, a 'leaked Pentagon video' revealed the government had tested a mind-control vaccine dubbed FunVax (fundamentalist vaccine) on unwitting civilian populations. The claim stated the vaccine was dispensed through large-scale spraying, vehicle exhaust, food, and water. (It should be noted with the exception of nasally administered flu vaccines, most vaccines are still dispensed through far more unwieldy syringes.) Central to the rumors were a single YouTube video described as a 'leaked Pentagon presentation' and a link to a website on which those plans were purportedly detailed, like this rumor we collected from the internet: Pentagon FunVax presentation on how the military can spread a virus and use a vaccine to extinguish 'undesirable human behavior'. Behavior modification through vaccination. Say goodbye to your free will. The article explained while these claims have circulated since at least 2011 (the date of the video's publication on YouTube), an increase in 'medical police state' activity had enabled people to 'connect the dots' about the covert deployment of this mind control vaccine: As you'll see in the document and video below, the vaccine was intended from the start to be deployed against civilian populations, and 600 strains of infectious viruses were tested on human subjects. One of the transmission vectors documented in the testing exploited an influenza strain to spread the mind-infecting virus as a pandemic. The point of all this is to infect the minds of the population and transform people into what the government calls 'normal.' From the government's point of view, of course, 'normal' means 'obedient and mindless.' This is all described in a video and a document that surfaced several years ago but which are only now beginning to connect the dots as the medical police state in America accelerates to insane levels of aggression against the population. See recent stories on medical kidnapping in Arkansas and CPS kidnapping of children in Arizona for starters. The video that supposedly exposed the FunVax plot has been circulating the Internet since at least 2011, yet no event or circumstance has validated the claims made in or about it since its first appearance, and recent interest in the clip came about solely through its 'discovery' by Natural News. The document appended as supplemental proof to the long-circulating video [PDF] is hosted on wanttoknow.info, a site devoted to discussion and dispersal of conspiracy-related material. While legitimate documents can and do sometimes emerge through what appear initially to be unreliable channels, no source is given for this 'quarterly FunVax report' dated to June 2007. On the site itself, the poster of the document admitted the video and the document were possibly faked and no evidence corroborating their authenticity was known: Though this may sound like some bizarre science fiction novel, the four-minute Pentagon video presentation and official FunVax report below show that this vaccine against fundamentalism is actively being tested for implementation. As it has been a few years since this date of this video and report, it is entirely possible this program has already been started. There is some possibility that the above video and document are faked. But if they are, it is very intelligent disinformation. Who would spend all of the time and money required to come up with such a sophisticated and coherent story? And why? Knowing how science and the military often work together, a program like this is all too possible. I once attended a lecture by Al Gore's science advisor in which he said he had been invited to see some of the most secret biological research programs being undertaken by the U.S. military. He said it gave him nightmares for months. It's likely true a number of covert programs would send chills down the spines of most Americans were they made privy to the nuts and bolts of strategic defense planning, biological or otherwise. As to who might be responsible for such disinformation, that could be anyone's guess. However, right around the time FunVax conspiracy theories began to circulate, an active Kickstarter campaign titled 'FunVax - A Film About the Conspiracy' was launched by an individual named Ryan Harper. (The campaign ultimately failed to achieve its funding goal.) Harper is also the registrant for the domain FunVax.com, a site ostensibly created to promote the film. Notably, much of the speculation about FunVax occurred in 2011 and 2012 (Harper registered the domain in April 2011), and almost all claims made about it lead back to Harper and the film project. The clip in question was not 'leaked' until September 2011, making the chronology of the FunVax conspiracy even more suspicious. While it's possible a separate source disseminated the video as Harper endeavored to fund and film his documentary, there's also no compelling evidence any information about FunVax originated from a source other than Harper himself. As for that video, it too has provoked skepticism even among those who've not examined the source of the claims. All identifying details (such as date and context) were supplied by its original poster, and the low resolution of the footage makes it difficult to determine whether the audio portion was tacked on to an extant video from another source entirely. Ultimately, those objections are secondary to the logistically and scientifically implausible aspects of the FunVax rumor. First and foremost, while the 'God gene' is a popular bit of pop science, it isn't supported by any peer-reviewed evidence: Is the God gene real? The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is what Hamer presents in his book. He and his colleagues are still preparing to submit their results to a scientific journal. It would be nice to know whether these results can withstand the rigors of peer review. It would be nicer still to know whether any other scientists can replicate them. The field of behavioral genetics is littered with failed links between particular genes and personality traits. These alleged associations at first seemed very strong. But as other researchers tried to replicate them, they faded away into statistical noise. In 1993, for example, a scientist reported a genetic link to male homosexuality in a region of the X chromosome. The report brought a huge media fanfare, but other scientists who tried to replicate the study failed. The scientist's name was Dean Hamer. In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | In short, the FunVax rumor originated largely with a filmmaker who sought to create a documentary of the same name about the 'FunVax conspiracy.' The only evidence supporting the rumor is a YouTube video of questionable veracity and an unsourced document that purportedly describes the project. The entire concept of FunVax (which was supposedly already secretly developed, produced, and tested on unwitting Americans) hinged on a 'God gene' theory that has yet to pass peer review or yield any known applications. Furthermore, this unproven gene theory supposedly inspired a wide-scale vaccination program involving technologies heretofore unseen in all other areas of working medical science. None of these related technologies (including vastly simplified and effective dispensation of vaccines) has ever been applied or even piloted in any areas of science or medicine before, and are so covert they are virtually unknown in documented pharmaceutical technology. Taken alone, these objections would cast the rumor into the territory of science fiction; all together, it's pretty clear the claim is impossible on many levels. It's also worth mentioning the FunVax claim may sound slightly familiar to Firefly fans, as it very closely matches the main plot line of the film Serenity (spoiler alert):Recent Updates | [] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
An inaudible sonic weapon adequately explains the 'Havana Syndrome,' a range of symptoms experienced by diplomats suffering from 'health attacks' in Cuba. | Contradiction | Editor's Note: On Aug. 24, 2021, a planned visit to Vietnam by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris was delayed after 'a report of a recent possible anomalous health incident' in Hanoi, according to a news release from the State Department, apparently referring to a suspected case of 'Havana Syndrome.' A mysterious international dispute that threatens the recently thawed diplomatic relationship between the United States and Cuba came to light in a 10 August 2017 story first reported by the Associated Press. The report focused on what has come to be known as the 'Havana Syndrome,' a series of seemingly related illnesses suffered by American and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba. The original reporting included what later appeared to be speculation from unnamed United States government officials that some form of heretofore unknown sonic weapon was to blame: In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. The U.S. State Department later walked back claims that they specifically had concluded a sonic weapon was at play, saying through a spokesperson that 'we do not know who or what is causing these incidents'. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described the incidents as 'health attacks', and Cuba denies any involvement. As reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2017, the range of symptoms is nonspecific and vague: Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some victims felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms, leading investigators to consider a potential 'sonic attack.' Others heard nothing but later developed symptoms. In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | In sum, the symptoms (none of which are universal to all cases) that have been used in the defense of the claim that a 'sonic weapon' was used are as follows: Hearing loss Nausea, Vertigo, Headaches, Ear-ringing Concentration and memory problems Brain swelling or 'damage to the central nervous system' 'A more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' Additional clues into the nature of the attack, including the occurrence of an audible noise in some cases, were provided first by a 20 August 2017 CNN report, reporting that some diplomats heard 'a deafeningly loud [but unidentified] sound similar to the buzzing created by insects or metal scraping across a floor'. CBS News reported: Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds - loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas. Others heard the grinding noise. The reports of screeching noises in some cases and no noise in most cases initially fed both government and media speculation that a 'silent' audible device was most likely used (there are ranges of noise close to audible sound that can be heard by some but not others). The two options, then, would be an infrasonic device (below the audible frequency humans hear) or an ultrasonic device (above that range). The debate about which brand of inaudible noise would be used generally boils down to this: infrasonic waves capable of affecting humans covertly would need to be extremely close to the victim or unrealistically large, and they would not be able to produce a targeted attack, instead affecting a larger and thus more indiscriminate area. Ultrasonic waves could be targeted, focused, and beamed from further away, but are unlikely to cause a bulk of the symptoms ascribed to them and unless the device was physically touching the victim. Before diving into this research, two variables related to sound are necessary to understand what follows. These include the frequency of the noise - defined by the number of waves per unit of time - and also its power, determined by the amount of energy each wave carries. The former is reported in Hz or kHz, with infrasound including noise below 20 Hz, and ultrasound encompassing noise above 20 kHz (20,000 Hz). (The latter is reported in decibels or dB.) Below, we detail the main research regarding the primary symptoms discussed in the reporting of the Cuban 'health attacks', finding a.) that the evidence is fairly weak for both ultrasound and infrasound as the cause for a majority of the symptoms listed and b.) that none of the symptoms can be described entirely by either only infrasound or only ultrasound. Hearing Loss Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound The source most commonly cited in news reports suggesting that infrasound can cause hearing loss is a 2001 review conducted by the NIH, which stated (with heavy qualification) that research, while sparse, shows 'physical damage to the ear or some loss of hearing has been found in humans and/or animals at levels above 140 dB'. The 140 dB measurement is no minor omission of detail, as 140 dB infrasonic waves projected covertly at any distance are essentially impossible. The actual studies reviewed in this NIH document generally suggest the opposite: low-frequency, high-power noise will not cause hearing loss, temporary or otherwise, if below the considerably high energy of 150 dB. Ultrasonic sound is widely considered to be irrelevant to hearing loss. Another 2001 review by Jürgen Altmann, an acoustic weapons expert and physicist at Germany's Technische Universitaet Dortmund and who investigated the bulk of the literature up to that time, concluded that at ultrasound 'the ear is essentially untouched' if levels are below 140 dB. Fatigue, Headaches, Ringing Ears, Vertigo, and Nausea Not explained by infrasound Inconclusive evidence regarding ultrasound Based on the reviews performed by both the NIH and by Altmann, there is no scientific consensus on fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, or vertigo as they apply to infrasonic noise. The only symptom in this category discussed as a possible result of infrasonic noise is nausea. Per the NIH: There is no agreement about the biological activity of infrasound. Reported effects include [...] nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm. Altmann (and many others) argued that the gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, and bowel spasms in particular, while frequently reported in the press, have been overblown and cannot conclusively be tied to infrasonic sound: The vertigo and nausea effects in the journalistic articles ascribed to intense infrasound cannot be confirmed. On the other hand, low [but still audible] frequencies of 50-100 Hz at 150 to 155 dB caused mild nausea. Many of the above symptoms (headaches, ringing ears, nausea, and fatigue), however, were once referred to in the literature as 'ultrasonic sickness'. This suite of symptoms and their ties to ultrasonic noise was based on numerous reports from workers in proximity to a variety of ultrasonic devices or tools. Altmann has argued that this literature is hard to interpret as these environments contain significant audible sound, as well. A 2013 review of the effects of ultrasound on humans makes a similar argument: Many studies confirmed the appearance of subjective symptoms of exposure to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices like dizziness, balance disturbances, tinnitus and fatigue. It is assumed that those symptoms result from the effect of noise on the vestibular system; however, further studies are necessary. [...] According to the results of studies in the 1960s and 1970s, 'audible' components of the noise spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjective symptoms among workers exposed to noise emitted by ultrasonic devices. Concentration and memory problems Poorly explained by infrasound Poorly explained by ultrasound There are few human studies addressing the neurological effects of infrasonic sound on cognition. Within those, a few single studies demonstrate a connection between infrasound and cognition on humans and animals. Overall, however, most research demonstrates no connection at all, and none have suggested permanent or persistent issues after exposure, as stated in the National Institutes of Health's 2001 review: In several experiments to assess cognitive performance during exposure to infrasound [...] no reduction in performance was observed in the subjects. Sole exposure to infrasound at 10 to 15 Hz and 130 to 135 dB for 30 minutes also did not produce changes in autonomic nervous functions. In terms of ultrasound, the 2013 review noted that many concentration issues could be associated with the symptoms of 'ultrasonic sickness' without being directly caused by the noise itself: It is worth mentioning that some subjective effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise such as fatigue, headache, discomfort or irritation may disturb human cognitive functions. This body of research refers to the transient appearance of these symptoms when in direct contact with that sound, and makes no suggestion of prolonged memory problems like word recall. Outside of occupational studies that lack relevance to sonic weapon development and by their nature include audible sound as well, there is little evidence in humans to suggest that ultrasound can be the cause for permanent neurological damage. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Poorly explained by infrasound Not explained by ultrasound Altmann, author of the 2001 review of acoustic weapons, told the Associated Press: I know of no acoustic effect or device that could produce traumatic brain injury or concussion-like symptoms. The only real mechanism for a damage to the internal organ system such as the brain would be through some sort of powerful internal vibration caused by the strong vibration of the sound waves themselves. Scientists agree that this would best be achieved by infrasound, but the evidence that such frequencies could actually make this happen is quite limited and derived almost entirely from studies on animals or anecdotal reports. A 2009 review published in the journal Military Medicine notes that 'remarkable properties have been attributed to infrasound, including the capacity to 'debilitate people for hours and even days,' with 'pulsing in their internal organs and blurred vision, both of which can lead to ..., in rare cases, death,'' but this review also highlights the reality that there are nearly no studies to back up such claims. In fact, studies performed as far back as 1978 and as recently as 2009 conclude that an infrasonic weapon used to harm major organ systems would be implausible - if not completely impossible. In terms of ultrasound, it is essentially impossible for this kind of energy to penetrate into the human body without direct contact, as the waves dissipate rapidly through the air (and, it should be noted, pretty rapidly within the body as well). Responding to questions that ultrasonic waves could cause brain damage, Robin Cleveland, a professor of engineering science at the University of Oxford, told the Guardian he doesn't buy it: 'The sound would have to enter the brain tissue itself [...]. If there's even a tiny bit of air between the sound and your body it doesn't get through.' Blood Disorders Not enough information Without knowing more than that a victim experienced 'a more serious illness that involved a blood disorder' it is hard to confidently assess plausibility of this this kind of disease except to say that the reasons ultrasonic noise do not explain brain damage would likely hold for any illness that requires sound to penetrate into the body. According to the NIH, the most consistently reported effect of infrasonic noise (though the mechanisms remains unclear) seem to be changes in blood pressure and respiratory rate, which could perhaps be linked to other diseases indirectly. There is no existing evidence that links noise of any kind to the development of a blood disorder. In the End, Neither Infrasound or Ultrasound Work as an Explanation Taking even the most tenuous scientific research at face value, an ultrasonic device could be responsible for the transient occurrence of fatigue, headaches, ringing ears, vertigo, and nausea and (even more dubious) concentration and memory issues. Taking a similarly loose approach for infrasound, this kind of noise could cause hearing loss, nausea, and (most dubiously) some form of organ discomfort or damage. Neither can explain all of the symptoms. Further, there is no real way to create a covert version of either device. F. Joseph Pompei, a former MIT researcher and current chief executive officer of a company that develops devices that focus sound into narrow, targeted beams, told us that a focused or controllable beam of 20Hz (infrasonic) sound would require an array of subwoofers 'the size of a stadium'. Conversely, he told us, for an ultrasonic device to penetrate into the body at all, the victim would either have to be submerged in water or have the device in physical contact (both conditions would allow those waves to pass into the body without reflecting off it). This, as well, seems unlikely to be a covert choice for an attack. 'It sounds very appealing and interesting, but I find it hard to believe that there actually is such a device,' John Oghalai, Chair of the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery at the University of Southern California, told The Verge. Collectively, the scientific research - which in many cases notes that anecdotal and inaccurate reports in newspapers have long obfuscated the actual science behind the plausibility of such a device - demonstrates that no single brand of sound could create the range of symptoms described by the victims of the Cuban health attacks, and even if they could, a covert device would be hard if not impossible to design. As such we rank the specific claim that an inaudible sonic device adequately explains the health attacks in Cuba as false. On 1 September 2018, the New York Times reported on a theory the government is said to be considering as a cause of the health attacks on American and other diplomats in Cuba: focused beams of microwave energy that can cause both brain damage and the perception of noises when such noises do not exist. This effect, the Times reported, has been known to science since 1961 as the Frey effect or the microwave auditory effect. In a 2017 paper, electrical engineering professor James Lin suggested this phenomenon could explain the events in Havana: Some readers may find it preposterous or astonishing that auditory perception of (or hearing) microwave pulses is possible. So let me explain. Studies have shown that the auditory phenomenon occurs at a microwave radiation specific-energy-absorption rate threshold of 1.6 W/g for a single 10-μs-wide pulse of microwaves aimed at the subject or subject's head, for example. Most significantly, high-power microwave pulses may be covertly delivered remotely, so that only the intended target would perceive the sound in his or her own head ... Depending on the intensity of the impinging microwave pulses, the level of induced sound pressure could be considerably above the threshold of auditory perception at the cochlea- approaching or exceeding levels of discomfort (including the reported headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, and problems with balance or vertigo) and even causing potential tissue injury. Douglas H. Smith, the lead author on a March 2018 paper about the Cuban health attacks and the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair at the University of Pennsylvania, said that 'microwaves were now considered a main suspect.' The Times also cited 'a secretive group of elite scientists that helps the federal government assess new threats to national security' assuggesting that the microwave theory is among those being considered. The weaponization of this technology, the Times reported, has been of interest to both the United States and the former Soviet Union. The Cuban government, via a CNN interview with a member of the Cuban task force investigating the attacks, has pushed back against this theory, suggesting it belongs in the realm of science fiction and that it is inconsistent with the reported circumstances described by the victims: 'If you look at the alleged events, there have been reports that there are several people in a room with thick walls and thick windows and only one person was targeted. This is a kind of weapon that doesn't exist,' said Dr. Mitchell Valdes-Sosa, a well-known neurologist who is part of the Cuban special task force investigating the alleged attacks. 'It's science fiction, not science,' he said. 'First, it was sonic weapons, now microwave. What's next, kryptonite?' the investigator said in an interview with CNN at his research center in Havana, referring to an earlier theory that sonic weapons emitting high-powered ultrasound waves could have caused the injuries. We note an apparent conflict between reports of actual audio recordings of the attack that were published by the Associated Press in October 2017 and the general conclusion that the microwave auditory effects register only in the brains of the victims and not in a way that is detectable by traditional recording equipment. CNN reported that the Cuban government is currently working on a rebuttal to the microwave theory.Recent Updates Update [Aug. 24, 2021]: Updated to report that a trip by VP Kamala Harris to Vietnam was delayed due to a suspected case of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. This article was updated to include subsequent theories about microwave energy being responsible for the reported health attacks. | [
"13034-proof-03-cuba_sonic_weapon_fb.jpg"
] |
Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine contains aborted fetal cells. | 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 2021, just days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a single-dose immunization developed by Johnson & Johnson to curb the COVID-19 outbreak, Catholic leaders and evangelicals cautioned followers against accepting the new vaccine because of its alleged ingredients. According to a March 2 statement by leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, the J&J vaccine was 'developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines,' raising ethical concerns for church followers who do not believe in or want to support abortions. Another advisory by the Archdiocese of New Orleans called the immunization 'morally compromised.' The underlying claim, however, was a misrepresentation of facts. The vaccine formula does not contain aborted fetal tissue. Rather, virologists created J&J's vaccine - and many other immunizations to fight viral outbreaks - in part by growing a modified virus in cells originally derived from embryonic tissue from an abortion performed decades ago. However, that human cell line is physically and chemically separate from ingredients that end up in the final vaccine product. 'There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process,' Dr. Michael Head, of the University of Southampton, told BBC. We explain more about the vaccine production process and final product, sourcing scientific journals and infectious disease experts, below. What Is the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine? All COVID-19 vaccines - no matter the sponsor (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc.) - attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus if necessary. How the different vaccines achieve that goal, however, varies. For example, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, use mRNA technology. In J&J's case, the vaccine takes the form of what's called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing) uses the same type of technology, Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease scholar at Johns Hopkins who works on pandemic policy, told Snopes. 'Once a person gets the shot, their cells receive the 'directions' from the vector, telling them how to create copies of the spike protein,' the medical institution explains of the J&J formula on its website. 'As the spike proteins accumulate in the body, the immune system is alerted to their presence and creates antibodies and an immune reaction to fight them.' In J&J's own words, according to an email from a spokesperson for the company to Snopes: Our COVID-19 vaccine is made using a harmless cold-like virus into which we insert a piece of the coronavirus spike protein. It teaches the immune system to recognize the COVID virus and protect against infection. Our vaccine contains no fetal tissue whatsoever. Where Do Human Cells Play a Role? It is true, however, that in order to create the materials of the genetically-modified vector, otherwise known as the adenovirus, scientists in labs used the descendent of a single cell from an aborted fetus that is decades old. Like we reported in late 2020 (while investigating the same question for AstraZeneca vaccine), in order to engineer these type of immunizations mass production, the lines of human embryotic cells serve as miniature 'factories' where the adenoviruses multiply quickly, as explained by Science Magazine. The adenovirus eventually grow and multiply until the embryonic cells burst. After that, scientists remove what's left of the human cell material through a rigorous purification process. 'What happens is they grow the virus through those [human] cells. They then harvest the virus, filter all of that material. What you get in your vaccine is actually the virus that's been engineered,' Adalja told Charlotte's NBC-affiliate news station. So, in short, the human cell lines do not end up in the final J&J vaccine product but rather serve as incubators to create biological material to fight the virus that causes COVID-19 symptoms. 'This cell line enables us to rapidly manufacture hundreds of millions of single-shot COVID vaccines that can be transferred and stored without the need for deep freezing,' J&J told Snopes. Furthermore, it was erroneous to think virologists took the above-referenced embryonic cells - which scientists call PER.C6 in J&J's process - directly from aborted fetal tissue, or that J&J relied on a steady supply of aborted fetuses to make its shots. Instead, PER.C6 cells are the multi-generational offspring of a colony of a fetal cell line that originated with one 18-week old fetus aborted in 1985 and serve various purposes in biology research. '[It's] important to realize that fetal cell lines have been used (and will continue to be used) in many biotechnological applications,' Adalja wrote in an email to Snopes. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.' Vatican: Any Vaccine Is Better Than No Vaccine While testing COVID-19 vaccine formulas, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, also made use of human fetal cells. The Catholic church, however, considered their process less morally egregious than J&J's, according to the statement by the U.S. bishops. It read: [It] is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.'[1] However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson's. In other words, the bishops recirculated the Vatican's message - people have the moral duty to protect their own health and should get vaccinated to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - and, as a result, people should not hesitate to accept Johnson & Johnson shots if they're the only type of immunization offered to them. One day after the statement, NPR reported a leader of a Catholic hospital in the Maryland suburbs said providers were indeed distributing 500 doses of the J&J vaccine, regardless of the fetal cell debate. 'Cell lines are not a primary concern when you have the greater issue of saving lives,' Rev. Kirtley Yearwood said. In reality, Americans who are eligible for vaccinations generally have no choice of which vaccine they receive. Federal, state, and local health authorities decide how, and where, to distribute the shots. As of this writing, the U.S. federal government was preparing to purchase 100 million doses of the J&J as part of its effort to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to all Americans who want them by May. | in short, the human cell lines do not end up in the final J&J vaccine product but rather serve as incubators to create biological material to fight the virus that causes COVID-19 symptoms. 'This cell line enables us to rapidly manufacture hundreds of millions of single-shot COVID vaccines that can be transferred and stored without the need for deep freezing,' J&J told Snopes. Furthermore, it was erroneous to think virologists took the above-referenced embryonic cells - which scientists call PER.C6 in J&J's process - directly from aborted fetal tissue, or that J&J relied on a steady supply of aborted fetuses to make its shots. Instead, PER.C6 cells are the multi-generational offspring of a colony of a fetal cell line that originated with one 18-week old fetus aborted in 1985 and serve various purposes in biology research. '[It's] important to realize that fetal cell lines have been used (and will continue to be used) in many biotechnological applications,' Adalja wrote in an email to Snopes. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.' Vatican: Any Vaccine Is Better Than No Vaccine While testing COVID-19 vaccine formulas, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, also made use of human fetal cells. The Catholic church, however, considered their process less morally egregious than J&J's, according to the statement by the U.S. bishops. It read: [It] is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.'[1] However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson's. In other words, the bishops recirculated the Vatican's message - people have the moral duty to protect their own health and should get vaccinated to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - and, as a result, people should not hesitate to accept Johnson & Johnson shots if they're the only type of immunization offered to them. One day after the statement, NPR reported a leader of a Catholic hospital in the Maryland suburbs said providers were indeed distributing 500 doses of the J&J vaccine, regardless of the fetal cell debate. 'Cell lines are not a primary concern when you have the greater issue of saving lives,' Rev. Kirtley Yearwood said. In reality, Americans who are eligible for vaccinations generally have no choice of which vaccine they receive. Federal, state, and local health authorities decide how, and where, to distribute the shots. As of this writing, the U.S. federal government was preparing to purchase 100 million doses of the J&J as part of its effort to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to all Americans who want them by May. | [
"13049-proof-03-GettyImages-1231620660.jpg"
] |
Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine contains aborted fetal cells. | 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 2021, just days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a single-dose immunization developed by Johnson & Johnson to curb the COVID-19 outbreak, Catholic leaders and evangelicals cautioned followers against accepting the new vaccine because of its alleged ingredients. According to a March 2 statement by leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, the J&J vaccine was 'developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines,' raising ethical concerns for church followers who do not believe in or want to support abortions. Another advisory by the Archdiocese of New Orleans called the immunization 'morally compromised.' The underlying claim, however, was a misrepresentation of facts. The vaccine formula does not contain aborted fetal tissue. Rather, virologists created J&J's vaccine - and many other immunizations to fight viral outbreaks - in part by growing a modified virus in cells originally derived from embryonic tissue from an abortion performed decades ago. However, that human cell line is physically and chemically separate from ingredients that end up in the final vaccine product. 'There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process,' Dr. Michael Head, of the University of Southampton, told BBC. We explain more about the vaccine production process and final product, sourcing scientific journals and infectious disease experts, below. What Is the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine? All COVID-19 vaccines - no matter the sponsor (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, etc.) - attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus if necessary. How the different vaccines achieve that goal, however, varies. For example, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, use mRNA technology. In J&J's case, the vaccine takes the form of what's called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing) uses the same type of technology, Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease scholar at Johns Hopkins who works on pandemic policy, told Snopes. 'Once a person gets the shot, their cells receive the 'directions' from the vector, telling them how to create copies of the spike protein,' the medical institution explains of the J&J formula on its website. 'As the spike proteins accumulate in the body, the immune system is alerted to their presence and creates antibodies and an immune reaction to fight them.' In J&J's own words, according to an email from a spokesperson for the company to Snopes: Our COVID-19 vaccine is made using a harmless cold-like virus into which we insert a piece of the coronavirus spike protein. It teaches the immune system to recognize the COVID virus and protect against infection. Our vaccine contains no fetal tissue whatsoever. Where Do Human Cells Play a Role? It is true, however, that in order to create the materials of the genetically-modified vector, otherwise known as the adenovirus, scientists in labs used the descendent of a single cell from an aborted fetus that is decades old. Like we reported in late 2020 (while investigating the same question for AstraZeneca vaccine), in order to engineer these type of immunizations mass production, the lines of human embryotic cells serve as miniature 'factories' where the adenoviruses multiply quickly, as explained by Science Magazine. The adenovirus eventually grow and multiply until the embryonic cells burst. After that, scientists remove what's left of the human cell material through a rigorous purification process. 'What happens is they grow the virus through those [human] cells. They then harvest the virus, filter all of that material. What you get in your vaccine is actually the virus that's been engineered,' Adalja told Charlotte's NBC-affiliate news station. So, in short, the human cell lines do not end up in the final J&J vaccine product but rather serve as incubators to create biological material to fight the virus that causes COVID-19 symptoms. 'This cell line enables us to rapidly manufacture hundreds of millions of single-shot COVID vaccines that can be transferred and stored without the need for deep freezing,' J&J told Snopes. Furthermore, it was erroneous to think virologists took the above-referenced embryonic cells - which scientists call PER.C6 in J&J's process - directly from aborted fetal tissue, or that J&J relied on a steady supply of aborted fetuses to make its shots. Instead, PER.C6 cells are the multi-generational offspring of a colony of a fetal cell line that originated with one 18-week old fetus aborted in 1985 and serve various purposes in biology research. '[It's] important to realize that fetal cell lines have been used (and will continue to be used) in many biotechnological applications,' Adalja wrote in an email to Snopes. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.' Vatican: Any Vaccine Is Better Than No Vaccine While testing COVID-19 vaccine formulas, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, also made use of human fetal cells. The Catholic church, however, considered their process less morally egregious than J&J's, according to the statement by the U.S. bishops. It read: [It] is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.'[1] However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson's. In other words, the bishops recirculated the Vatican's message - people have the moral duty to protect their own health and should get vaccinated to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - and, as a result, people should not hesitate to accept Johnson & Johnson shots if they're the only type of immunization offered to them. One day after the statement, NPR reported a leader of a Catholic hospital in the Maryland suburbs said providers were indeed distributing 500 doses of the J&J vaccine, regardless of the fetal cell debate. 'Cell lines are not a primary concern when you have the greater issue of saving lives,' Rev. Kirtley Yearwood said. In reality, Americans who are eligible for vaccinations generally have no choice of which vaccine they receive. Federal, state, and local health authorities decide how, and where, to distribute the shots. As of this writing, the U.S. federal government was preparing to purchase 100 million doses of the J&J as part of its effort to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to all Americans who want them by May. | in short, the human cell lines do not end up in the final J&J vaccine product but rather serve as incubators to create biological material to fight the virus that causes COVID-19 symptoms. 'This cell line enables us to rapidly manufacture hundreds of millions of single-shot COVID vaccines that can be transferred and stored without the need for deep freezing,' J&J told Snopes. Furthermore, it was erroneous to think virologists took the above-referenced embryonic cells - which scientists call PER.C6 in J&J's process - directly from aborted fetal tissue, or that J&J relied on a steady supply of aborted fetuses to make its shots. Instead, PER.C6 cells are the multi-generational offspring of a colony of a fetal cell line that originated with one 18-week old fetus aborted in 1985 and serve various purposes in biology research. '[It's] important to realize that fetal cell lines have been used (and will continue to be used) in many biotechnological applications,' Adalja wrote in an email to Snopes. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'False.' Vatican: Any Vaccine Is Better Than No Vaccine While testing COVID-19 vaccine formulas, J&J's competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, also made use of human fetal cells. The Catholic church, however, considered their process less morally egregious than J&J's, according to the statement by the U.S. bishops. It read: [It] is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.'[1] However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson's. In other words, the bishops recirculated the Vatican's message - people have the moral duty to protect their own health and should get vaccinated to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - and, as a result, people should not hesitate to accept Johnson & Johnson shots if they're the only type of immunization offered to them. One day after the statement, NPR reported a leader of a Catholic hospital in the Maryland suburbs said providers were indeed distributing 500 doses of the J&J vaccine, regardless of the fetal cell debate. 'Cell lines are not a primary concern when you have the greater issue of saving lives,' Rev. Kirtley Yearwood said. In reality, Americans who are eligible for vaccinations generally have no choice of which vaccine they receive. Federal, state, and local health authorities decide how, and where, to distribute the shots. As of this writing, the U.S. federal government was preparing to purchase 100 million doses of the J&J as part of its effort to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to all Americans who want them by May. | [
"13049-proof-03-GettyImages-1231620660.jpg"
] |
Because of U.S. President Donald Trump, America recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. | 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. During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked 'from day one' in the White House to drive down American unemployment to 'record' low levels - evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's 'pro-growth agenda' was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that '50 year' claim and said his administration is responsible for the 'best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country.' He tweeted: The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he 'has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln,' and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers. This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim - that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever - we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate - the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed - in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the 'Current Population Survey.' Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the 'the lowest level in more than 50 years' under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term - Jan. 20, 2017 - to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.) Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5% - the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet - that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed) - was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that 'an unusually large number of people in their prime working years' were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. Economist: 'It's Been A Continuation of a Steady Trend.' We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: In October 2009, about four months after the Great Recession technically ended, 8.7% of women in the American workforce were unemployed. About a decade later, in 2019, the same measurement hovered below 3.8% for most of the year. Also in October 2009, 12.8% of Hispanic or Latino workers were unemployed. Likewise, the unemployment rate among the same demographic remained below 4.4% between April and June 2019. In 2009, the unemployment rate among Black workers or African Americans steadily increased month-by-month, reaching an annual high of 16.1% in December. Comparatively, the same measurement dropped to 6.6% in March 2019 and continued to decline over the course of the year, under Trump. But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim - that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs - accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit. Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office - the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. 'At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend,' economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. That's not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but it's hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch - including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth - broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate - but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data - we rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate - but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data - we rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | [
"13083-proof-03-GettyImages-1228998253-scaled.jpg"
] |
Because of U.S. President Donald Trump, America recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. | 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. During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked 'from day one' in the White House to drive down American unemployment to 'record' low levels - evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's 'pro-growth agenda' was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that '50 year' claim and said his administration is responsible for the 'best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country.' He tweeted: The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he 'has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln,' and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers. This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim - that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever - we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate - the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed - in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the 'Current Population Survey.' Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the 'the lowest level in more than 50 years' under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term - Jan. 20, 2017 - to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.) Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5% - the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet - that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed) - was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that 'an unusually large number of people in their prime working years' were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. Economist: 'It's Been A Continuation of a Steady Trend.' We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: In October 2009, about four months after the Great Recession technically ended, 8.7% of women in the American workforce were unemployed. About a decade later, in 2019, the same measurement hovered below 3.8% for most of the year. Also in October 2009, 12.8% of Hispanic or Latino workers were unemployed. Likewise, the unemployment rate among the same demographic remained below 4.4% between April and June 2019. In 2009, the unemployment rate among Black workers or African Americans steadily increased month-by-month, reaching an annual high of 16.1% in December. Comparatively, the same measurement dropped to 6.6% in March 2019 and continued to decline over the course of the year, under Trump. But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim - that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs - accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit. Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office - the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. 'At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend,' economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. That's not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but it's hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch - including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth - broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate - but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data - we rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate - but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data - we rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | [
"13083-proof-03-GettyImages-1228998253-scaled.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a Southeast African monkey from Madagascar. | Contradiction | In early 2015, a photograph alleged to be that of a cute, odd-looking monkey from Madagascar began circulating via social media. The image was frequently shared with the claim that the pictured creature was a 'Madagascar Southeast African monkey:' Madagascar, Southeast Africa Monkey This photograph, however, does not capture an unusual primate from Madagascar. Instead, it depicts a doll from the 'Inari Foxes' collection produced by the Santani Workshop in Russia. The group's Deviant Art page features several related images, including the one displayed above, of mythical creatures made of 'different types of doll plastic like fimo, cernit, sculpey, sonet:' This isn't the first time that a doll has fooled the internet. In December 2014, a photograph of a pair of cute (but fake) owlets also went viral on social media. | In early 2015, a photograph alleged to be that of a cute, odd-looking monkey from Madagascar began circulating via social media. The image was frequently shared with the claim that the pictured creature was a 'Madagascar Southeast African monkey:' Madagascar, Southeast Africa Monkey This photograph, however, does not capture an unusual primate from Madagascar. Instead, it depicts a doll from the 'Inari Foxes' collection produced by the Santani Workshop in Russia. The group's Deviant Art page features several related images, including the one displayed above, of mythical creatures made of 'different types of doll plastic like fimo, cernit, sculpey, sonet:' This isn't the first time that a doll has fooled the internet. In December 2014, a photograph of a pair of cute (but fake) owlets also went viral on social media. | [
"13226-proof-02-madmonkey-1.jpg"
] |
Following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots, Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying military forces to suppress civil unrest in Washington, D.C. | Contradiction | On Jan. 11, 2021, as Democratic leaders moved to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump following a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol a week before, rumors surfaced online alleging he had invoked a law that allows a president to use state or federal military forces to suppress civil unrest. Several tweets about the law, which is called the Insurrection Act, included photos or videos of officers wearing camouflage body armor supposedly patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C. 'Trump signed the Insurrection Act last night. Buckle up kids,' one person tweeted on Jan. 10. At least one Parler post alleged the president had invoked the law to specifically use military force against his political opponents, including high-profile Democrats and Republicans, as well as federal agencies that were attempting to uphold the country's democracy amid Trump's baseless election fraud claims. The text of the act, which federal leaders originally passed in 1807 and amended several times since, includes the following provisions: § [§ 251] 'Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.' § [§ 252] 'Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. In other words, the act is the most widely cited legal authority regarding the president's power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to a natural disaster, terroristic violence, civil unrest, or another safety issue. The executive authority is different from 'martial law,' which generally refers to the temporary military takeover of civilian functions and is not defined in federal statutes or the Constitution. (Read more about martial law via the Brennan Center for Justice.) Former President George H. W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in 1992 after a jury acquitted four police officers in the brutal beating of Rodney King, a Black man, prompting days of chaotic protests across the Los Angeles metro. Presidents generally invoke the Insurrection Act when, or if, the U.S. attorney general (Jeffrey A. Rosen began acting that role on Dec. 24) says to do so, or when the governor of the impacted state makes a request, according to a 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service. However, if that governor or state legislature 'cannot be convened' for whatever reason, the law provides the president the legal authority to federalize the National Guard and military without state approval. Put another way, the law is generally 'open-ended, leaving the President the power to decide if circumstances warrant' military intervention, according to University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck. So, to recap, the Insurrection Act gives the commander-in-chief the power to order military forces to try to stop violence at the request of state leaders, or when the president alone feels local law-enforcement agencies cannot enforce federal laws or violence is depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights. But here's a key fact to debunk the claim regarding Trump: If, or when, a president decides to use the law, another provision requires that person to issue a public proclamation ordering the people causing violence to disperse within a certain time. That order essentially serves as a warning to people posing safety threats that they could face arrests if they remain on streets. 'If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops,' according to the 2006 report, which followed criticism of the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina that killed more than 1,800 people. As of this report, Trump had not made such a proclamation - which means he did not invoke the Insurrection Act to authorize military forces to quell civil disobedience before, during, or after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack by American right-wing extremists. (See here for information on how Trump falsely claimed to have 'immediately' deployed the National Guard and law enforcement during the siege, and learn what actually happened.) On Jan. 10, BuzzFeed reported the governing body of Washington, D.C., the 13-member City Council, had received a briefing from the district's attorney general office prior to the riot about the implications of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, though that did not end up happening. A spokesman for the council's chair, Phil Mendelson, told USA TODAY the information, which explained how the act could allow the federal government to seize control of the district's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), was 'a cautionary thing as opposed to preparatory.' However, while it was false to claim Trump had invoked the Insurrection Act, National Guard members were indeed patrolling the nation's Capitol following the the Jan. 6 attack that resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer, numerous injuries and arrests, and property damage. The visual evidence of officers on social media that erroneously claimed president had invoked the act could be authentic, though misleading. On Jan. 9, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser authored a letter to Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, who announced his resignation days later, according to news reports. Bowser's letter urged the department to coordinate with agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, to enhance security around federal properties so that MPD officers could focus on other duties. It is typical for such agencies to boost surveillance during high-profile D.C. events, including presidential inaugurations. The letter also asked the DHS to reject or cancel permits for demonstrations prior to Joe Biden's presidential inauguration ceremony. The letter asked the DHS to start boosting security efforts on Jan. 11 related to the inauguration, as opposed to the previously determined date of Jan. 19. '[The timeline change] will allow for better Federal and District government interagency preparation for the [Jan. 20] Inauguration, given the new threats from insurgent acts of domestic terrorists,' the letter read. As of this report, Army Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters about 6,000 National Guard members from six states were stationed in D.C., and that that number would expand to about 10,000 over the course of days. The Washington Monument was being closed to the public amid the threats of disruption, The Associated Press reported. In addition to D.C., the FBI warned armed protesters could gather in 50 state capitals before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. In sum, while it was true that National Guard members were sent to D.C. in the days before Biden's swearing-in ceremony, officers' surveillance was not a result of the Insurrection Act but rather local and federal authorities' efforts to maintain safety and prevent property destruction during the presidential transition. Trump had not invoked the Insurrection Act to apply to the district - nor anywhere else. | In sum, while it was true that National Guard members were sent to D.C. in the days before Biden's swearing-in ceremony, officers' surveillance was not a result of the Insurrection Act but rather local and federal authorities' efforts to maintain safety and prevent property destruction during the presidential transition. Trump had not invoked the Insurrection Act to apply to the district - nor anywhere else. | [
"13286-proof-04-GettyImages-1230534220-scaled-e1610403080130.jpg"
] |
CNN was caught staging a dramatic rescue during Hurricane Harvey. | Contradiction | A video showing CNN reporter Drew Griffin and his news crew rushing to the rescue of a man who accidentally drove his truck into a small ravine flooded by Hurricane Harvey went viral on 30 August 2017: This footage was widely shared along with praise for Griffin and his crew, but almost immediately some viewers accused the news network of staging the rescue. This particular conspiracy theory, like many conspiracy theories, hinges on nothing more than an incorrect observation: Griffin was allegedly wearing shorts in one portion of the video, but pants in another. InfoWars.com attempted to explain the basis for this accusation: The video then cuts to the moment when the vehicle becomes marooned in the water. After about 20 seconds, Griffin is seen running towards the vehicle. He is wearing khaki shorts and trainers. However, in the next clip, where Griffin is seen pulling the man out of the water, he is now wearing dark pants and boots. Although InfoWars.com provides a set of images showing two men in CNN-branded red jackets - one wearing shorts and the other wearing pants - they did not explain how a wardrobe change would prove that this video had been staged, or how changing into pants from shorts would be necessary for the staging of such a video: This is a moot point, of course, as Griffin did not change his clothes during the course of this footage. The four men that can be seen in the video are reporter Drew Griffin (wearing a red jacket and pants), photographer Scott Pisczek (wearing a black shirt and shorts), producer Brian Rokus (wearing a red jacket and shorts), and Jerry Sumrall (the man who was pulled from the truck, who is not wearing a red jacket). Those peddling this claim apparently believe that the man spotted in shorts (around the :31 mark) was reporter Drew Griffin, not his field producer Brian Rokus. But upon reviewing the footage, this is not physically possible. Griffin can be seen running off screen to the left as he chases down the truck down the ravine. When the camera pans over, it shows a second man (Rokus, wearing shorts) who is already standing near the water. Judging by the time that passes between Griffin's departure from the screen, the direction that he was running, and the audio of his footsteps crunching against the grass, it is not possible for Griffin to be the man in shorts. What is even less clear is why CNN - a company that has been in the video news business for decades - would put out a hoax video that was so sloppily edited. Matt Dornic, CNN's vice president of communications, sent us a photograph of Griffin and Rokus on location. Both men are pictured wearing red CNN-branded jackets, as is standard for field reporting and producing: Dornic also called the accusations 'total BS' in a tweet: ?Absolutely absurd and total BS. There are two different people wearing CNN rain jackets. Wish I could say I'm surprised but.. https://t.co/O0zyyfT8iC - Matt Dornic (@mdornic) August 31, 2017 We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN's rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign. This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren't sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. | in shorts (around the :31 mark) was reporter Drew Griffin, not his field producer Brian Rokus. But upon reviewing the footage, this is not physically possible. Griffin can be seen running off screen to the left as he chases down the truck down the ravine. When the camera pans over, it shows a second man (Rokus, wearing shorts) who is already standing near the water. Judging by the time that passes between Griffin's departure from the screen, the direction that he was running, and the audio of his footsteps crunching against the grass, it is not possible for Griffin to be the man in shorts. What is even less clear is why CNN - a company that has been in the video news business for decades - would put out a hoax video that was so sloppily edited. Matt Dornic, CNN's vice president of communications, sent us a photograph of Griffin and Rokus on location. Both men are pictured wearing red CNN-branded jackets, as is standard for field reporting and producing: Dornic also called the accusations 'total BS' in a tweet: ?Absolutely absurd and total BS. There are two different people wearing CNN rain jackets. Wish I could say I'm surprised but.. https://t.co/O0zyyfT8iC - Matt Dornic (@mdornic) August 31, 2017 We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN's rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign. This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren't sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. | [
"13294-proof-03-cnn_hurricane_harvey_rescue_fb.jpg",
"13294-proof-08-cnn-reporters.jpg"
] |
CNN was caught staging a dramatic rescue during Hurricane Harvey. | Contradiction | A video showing CNN reporter Drew Griffin and his news crew rushing to the rescue of a man who accidentally drove his truck into a small ravine flooded by Hurricane Harvey went viral on 30 August 2017: This footage was widely shared along with praise for Griffin and his crew, but almost immediately some viewers accused the news network of staging the rescue. This particular conspiracy theory, like many conspiracy theories, hinges on nothing more than an incorrect observation: Griffin was allegedly wearing shorts in one portion of the video, but pants in another. InfoWars.com attempted to explain the basis for this accusation: The video then cuts to the moment when the vehicle becomes marooned in the water. After about 20 seconds, Griffin is seen running towards the vehicle. He is wearing khaki shorts and trainers. However, in the next clip, where Griffin is seen pulling the man out of the water, he is now wearing dark pants and boots. Although InfoWars.com provides a set of images showing two men in CNN-branded red jackets - one wearing shorts and the other wearing pants - they did not explain how a wardrobe change would prove that this video had been staged, or how changing into pants from shorts would be necessary for the staging of such a video: This is a moot point, of course, as Griffin did not change his clothes during the course of this footage. The four men that can be seen in the video are reporter Drew Griffin (wearing a red jacket and pants), photographer Scott Pisczek (wearing a black shirt and shorts), producer Brian Rokus (wearing a red jacket and shorts), and Jerry Sumrall (the man who was pulled from the truck, who is not wearing a red jacket). Those peddling this claim apparently believe that the man spotted in shorts (around the :31 mark) was reporter Drew Griffin, not his field producer Brian Rokus. But upon reviewing the footage, this is not physically possible. Griffin can be seen running off screen to the left as he chases down the truck down the ravine. When the camera pans over, it shows a second man (Rokus, wearing shorts) who is already standing near the water. Judging by the time that passes between Griffin's departure from the screen, the direction that he was running, and the audio of his footsteps crunching against the grass, it is not possible for Griffin to be the man in shorts. What is even less clear is why CNN - a company that has been in the video news business for decades - would put out a hoax video that was so sloppily edited. Matt Dornic, CNN's vice president of communications, sent us a photograph of Griffin and Rokus on location. Both men are pictured wearing red CNN-branded jackets, as is standard for field reporting and producing: Dornic also called the accusations 'total BS' in a tweet: ?Absolutely absurd and total BS. There are two different people wearing CNN rain jackets. Wish I could say I'm surprised but.. https://t.co/O0zyyfT8iC - Matt Dornic (@mdornic) August 31, 2017 We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN's rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign. This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren't sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. | in shorts (around the :31 mark) was reporter Drew Griffin, not his field producer Brian Rokus. But upon reviewing the footage, this is not physically possible. Griffin can be seen running off screen to the left as he chases down the truck down the ravine. When the camera pans over, it shows a second man (Rokus, wearing shorts) who is already standing near the water. Judging by the time that passes between Griffin's departure from the screen, the direction that he was running, and the audio of his footsteps crunching against the grass, it is not possible for Griffin to be the man in shorts. What is even less clear is why CNN - a company that has been in the video news business for decades - would put out a hoax video that was so sloppily edited. Matt Dornic, CNN's vice president of communications, sent us a photograph of Griffin and Rokus on location. Both men are pictured wearing red CNN-branded jackets, as is standard for field reporting and producing: Dornic also called the accusations 'total BS' in a tweet: ?Absolutely absurd and total BS. There are two different people wearing CNN rain jackets. Wish I could say I'm surprised but.. https://t.co/O0zyyfT8iC - Matt Dornic (@mdornic) August 31, 2017 We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN's rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign. This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren't sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. | [
"13294-proof-03-cnn_hurricane_harvey_rescue_fb.jpg",
"13294-proof-08-cnn-reporters.jpg"
] |
March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting in the U.S. since 2002. | 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. To prevent the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, state leaders across the U.S. ordered widespread school closures in March 2020. In the weeks that followed, millions of students spent their days at home instead of in classrooms. Some teachers and staff moved lessons online, and administrators locked the doors to school buildings so the general public could not enter. The closures were among the most dramatic steps by state leaders to combat the novel coronavirus that has killed more than 58,300 people globally as of this writing in mid-April 2020. About 56.6 million students registered for elementary or secondary school classes in the U.S. at the start of the 2019-20 academic year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. While a disruption to students' learning, the shutdowns in America may have provided an unintended benefit, beyond limiting people's exposure to the virus. On April 13, 2020, a journalist tweeted to his some 49,600 followers: 'Last month was the first March without a school shooting in the United States since 2002.' The reporter, Robert Klemko, quickly gained Twitter popularity among Americans who believe federal and state leaders should enact stricter gun laws, including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 'It shouldn't have taken a pandemic to make this possible,' her Twitter account wrote in a retweet of Klemko's post. Meanwhile, Facebook users shared screenshots of Klemko's tweet, and one Instagram account for a website that brands itself as a fact-checking service on that platform posted a photograph of a law-enforcement officer monitoring students boarding a school bus with Klemko's claim as overlay text. Among media sites, CBS News published a story stating the assertion as fact. 'My teens said this is the first time they have relaxed. No need to be hyper vigilant of every unusual sound, can just focus on school work,' one person tweeted. 'Both grew up with regular Active Shooter Drills since kindergarten.' The claim about school shootings since 2002 is twofold: It asserts that no school shootings occurred in the U.S. in March 2020 and that every March between 2003 and 2019 documented at least one such incident. But because agencies across government and the news media do not share a consistent way for tracking and defining school shootings, the truth of both assertions depends on whom you ask. The U.S. Secret Service and FBI, for example, provide an explanation of factors that contribute to school shootings but do not keep a running list of all on-campus gun crimes. Academics and school officials often rely on news media reports for their research, though journalists may not cover every shooting. The nation's biggest guns-rights group, the National Rifle Association, does not publish a running tally of shootings in schools, yet it has convened researchers to compile recommendations on how to avoid such incidents, like other organizations. Meanwhile, a leading opponent of the NRA - the lobbyist group Everytown for Gun Safety - has tracked all 'incidents of gunfire' in K-12 schools and colleges, including suicides; shootings in which no one suffered injuries; and cases where the victims or gunmen may not have any connection to the school, since 2013. Those prominent advocacy groups aside, the least partisan and most comprehensive source of school-shooting data appears to be the 'K-12 School Shooting Database' sponsored by the U.S. Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Updated daily by emergency-management researchers, the database records 'each and every instance in which a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time of day, or day of week,' according to its stated methodology. Its website summarizes the tricky situation analyzing school-shooting data as follows: Without a common methodology for data collection, individual data sources are limited in both validity and utility. Furthermore, there is no consensus for what actually defines a school shooting ... Based on the differences among all available reporting platforms, there is currently no single source for objective and accessible data from which school administrators, law enforcement, and public officials can draw to inform their decisions. With that as background, administrators of the CHDS-sponsored K-12 database documented eight incidents fitting its definition of a 'school shooting' in March 2020. Local news media reports affirm those findings. The incidents include: A shooting inside a Texas high school on March 2. According to The Dallas Morning News, authorities arrested a 17-year-old student on suspicion of 'accidentally' firing a gun during morning class. No one was injured. A shooting at a Florida K-12 private school on March 5. A security guard at the school allegedly shot another staff member in the face while showing off his gun, according to The Miami Herald. The victim sought medical help. A shooting in Pennsylvania on March 10 in which a gunman opened fire at school bus carrying elementary students. Per The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the bus was driving to school when a bullet 'went through one window and exited out the other side'. No one was injured. A incident on March 13 in which a security officer at a Tennessee elementary school discharged his gun inside his office. No one was struck. (Local coverage here.) The fatal shooting of a 19-year old man on a Texas high school football field on March 15. He was a former student of the high school. (Local coverage here.) A shooting on March 18 in the parking lot of a Louisiana high school that injured a 15-year-old male student. (Local coverage here.) A shooting on March 24 in the parking lot of a Louisiana elementary school that wounded a man. (Local coverage here.) A shooting on March 30 in the parking lot of a Georgia elementary school that injured three people. According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the victims sought medical help. Regarding the claim that March 2020 was the first March without a school shooting since 2002, the data is more murky. The CHDS-sponsored database lists at least one incident in U.S. K-12 schools in March of every year from 2003 through 2009, and every year from 2011 through 2020, but none in 2010. Supporting that finding, tallies of K-12 school shootings by the for-profit National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm and the advocacy group the National School Safety Center do not show a March 2010 incident. However, those sources only consider shootings on U.S. elementary, middle and high school properties. If you expand the scope of research to also include shootings on college campuses, Ohio State University documented a deadly shooting on March 9, 2010. According to the New York Times' coverage of the incident, officials said a custodian of the school shot and killed a co-worker before killing himself in a maintenance building. Another person was wounded in the gunfire. We reached out to Washington Post reporter Klemko - the author of the viral claim - to understand where he got his numbers. He said he did include cases involving post-secondary institutions, rather than only focusing on K-12 schools. But unlike other datasets, he said he only considered shootings in which students, teachers, or staff were the targets of the gunfire or the perpetrators. In other words, he said he did not consider cases where people trespassed on school property and opened fire at other people who aren't part of the school community. He also did not consider cases in which persons (no matter their affiliation with the school) accidentally discharged a gun or shootings on school properties outside of school hours or on weekends. 'I used shootings on school property, k-12, vocational schools, colleges and universities, where students or staff were intentionally shot at, or doing the shooting,' he wrote in an email. 'Where government and private data were inconclusive, news reports filled the gaps.' Looking at the comprehensive standards by which the CHDS-sponsored database documents shootings, he said 'it's a mistake' to consider the database's definition of a 'school shooting' as the most fair. 'Few Americans would agree, for example, that an incident where a safety officer accidentally fires a gun in an office, injuring no one, constitutes a school shooting,' he said. 'Likewise, few would agree that adults trespassing on school grounds and exchanging gunfire when school is not in session and no children are present, is a school shooting.' In sum, given the absence of a universal definition of 'school shooting' in the U.S., and given that a government database and news media reports show at least eight shootings did occur on school properties in March 2020, we rate this claim as 'Mostly False'. | In sum, given the absence of a universal definition of 'school shooting' in the U.S., and given that a government database and news media reports show at least eight shootings did occur on school properties in March 2020, we rate this claim as 'Mostly False'. | [
"13340-proof-08-GettyImages-1171004759.jpg"
] |
The city of New York is installing public masturbation booths. | Contradiction | In January 2016, a photograph purportedly showing an officially sanctioned New York City public masturbation booth called 'GuyFi' started circulating around the internet: While the above-displayed image is real, this isn't truly an officially sanctioned 'public masturbation booth' that was installed by New York City. The 'GuyFi' booth is a marketing gimmick for an adult sex toy company called Hot Octopuss. The company issued a press release for 'GuyFi' on 15 January 2016: With a staggering 80 per cent of Americans saying they suffer from workplace stress, award-winning sex toy brand Hot Octopuss has launched the world's first 'GuyFi' male stress relief booth in Manhattan. According to Time Out, a remarkable 39% of New Yorkers 'self-soothe' in the workplace to alleviate stress. Hot Octopuss has created the GuyFi booth to take this habit out of the office and into a more suitable environment designed to give the busy Manhattan man the privacy, and the high-speed Internet connection, he deserves. Adam Lewis, Hot Octopuss co-founder and designer of PULSE, the world's first Guybrator, said: 'There's no denying that working a nine to five job can be stressful on both your mind and body, especially in a non-stop city like Manhattan. It's really important for guys to look after themselves so that they can stay healthy and focus properly on the task in hand. We're told time and time again how beneficial it is to have a break away from your desk.' While Hot Octopuss really did convert an old phone booth into what it called a 'public masturbation booth,' New York City has not legalized public masturbation. A representative for the company told Mashable that they are not encouraging people to actually masturbate inside the 'GuyFi' booth: 'We may be insinuating that these booths could be used in whichever way anyone would like to 'self soothe,'' a representative tells Mashable, 'but the brand is not actively encouraging people to masturbate in public as that is an illegal offense.' In summation, the GuyFi booth does exist, but it is a marketing gimmick for Hot Octopuss, a sex toy company, and not an officially sanctioned public space for masturbation in New York City. Public masturbation remains illegal. | In summation, the GuyFi booth does exist, but it is a marketing gimmick for Hot Octopuss, a sex toy company, and not an officially sanctioned public space for masturbation in New York City. Public masturbation remains illegal. | [] |
The city of New York is installing public masturbation booths. | Contradiction | In January 2016, a photograph purportedly showing an officially sanctioned New York City public masturbation booth called 'GuyFi' started circulating around the internet: While the above-displayed image is real, this isn't truly an officially sanctioned 'public masturbation booth' that was installed by New York City. The 'GuyFi' booth is a marketing gimmick for an adult sex toy company called Hot Octopuss. The company issued a press release for 'GuyFi' on 15 January 2016: With a staggering 80 per cent of Americans saying they suffer from workplace stress, award-winning sex toy brand Hot Octopuss has launched the world's first 'GuyFi' male stress relief booth in Manhattan. According to Time Out, a remarkable 39% of New Yorkers 'self-soothe' in the workplace to alleviate stress. Hot Octopuss has created the GuyFi booth to take this habit out of the office and into a more suitable environment designed to give the busy Manhattan man the privacy, and the high-speed Internet connection, he deserves. Adam Lewis, Hot Octopuss co-founder and designer of PULSE, the world's first Guybrator, said: 'There's no denying that working a nine to five job can be stressful on both your mind and body, especially in a non-stop city like Manhattan. It's really important for guys to look after themselves so that they can stay healthy and focus properly on the task in hand. We're told time and time again how beneficial it is to have a break away from your desk.' While Hot Octopuss really did convert an old phone booth into what it called a 'public masturbation booth,' New York City has not legalized public masturbation. A representative for the company told Mashable that they are not encouraging people to actually masturbate inside the 'GuyFi' booth: 'We may be insinuating that these booths could be used in whichever way anyone would like to 'self soothe,'' a representative tells Mashable, 'but the brand is not actively encouraging people to masturbate in public as that is an illegal offense.' In summation, the GuyFi booth does exist, but it is a marketing gimmick for Hot Octopuss, a sex toy company, and not an officially sanctioned public space for masturbation in New York City. Public masturbation remains illegal. | In summation, the GuyFi booth does exist, but it is a marketing gimmick for Hot Octopuss, a sex toy company, and not an officially sanctioned public space for masturbation in New York City. Public masturbation remains illegal. | [] |
A new bill will require police officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons. | Contradiction | On 12 March 2019, the entertainment website Blue News Network published an article claiming that the U.S. government was considering a new bill that would require law-enforcement officers to get permission from their supervisors before drawing their weapons: In a recent bill presented to the Senate, law enforcement officers would be required to request permission from their shift supervisor before utilizing their service weapon. The bill, titled 'A Second Chance', is geared towards 'preventing police atrocities.' As part of the bill, officers finding themselves in a life threatening situation would first need to call their supervisor and ask before introducing their service weapon into the scenario. Further, the supervisor would then in turn have to call a local civilian committee to discuss the matter so that a community backed decision can be made. These steps would be taken prior to drawing not only their firearm but any other weapon, including tasers, OC spray and batons. This is not a genuine news story. Blue News Network is a site that publishes satirical articles focused on law enforcement. A blurb about the author of this article, 'Mike The Cop,' notes he writes satirical content. The website also carries a disclaimer clearly explaining the nature of its content: If you haven't figured it out yet, this is a satirical news website. While some stuff may bear a strong resemblance to the truth, we assure you it is most decidedly bullshit. We are just a few bored cops who thought we would make sport of triggering people and having a little fun at the expense of rookies, dispatchers, and troopers. If you don't like what we are doing here, I am sorry to tell you that we do not care. Have a great life, and stress less about the things you cannot control, like what we write on this site. For the cops on the road, you have our respect, even if we tease you a little. Be careful, and come home safe. While the Blue News Network is clearly labeled as satire, some readers may have been fooled by this story as it was published while California was considering two bills concerning the use of lethal force by police officers. Neither of those genuine bills, however, would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing weapons: A fight over when police officers should be allowed to open fire on suspects has returned to the state Capitol after negotiations between civil liberties advocates and law enforcement groups hit an impasse. Despite months of discussions led by state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, intended to produce compromise legislation, the two sides announced competing bills this week. One, backed by police, emphasizes more training. The other raises the legal standard for deadly use of force, making it easier to prosecute officers. In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | [
"13385-proof-03-GettyImages-125328990-e1552494855280.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits