Datasets:

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado.

Contradiction

In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado.

Contradiction

In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado.

Contradiction

In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

A man was once 'beaten to death' 'outside' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert's restaurant in Rifle, Colorado.

Contradiction

In March 2021, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the controversial first-term Republican Congresswoman from Colorado, spoke from the floor of the House of Representatives, in opposition to a bill that would expand background checks for prospective gun buyers. During her brief remarks on March 10, she described a violent incident that, in her account, prompted her to carry a handgun on her person at all times, in order to protect herself. According to Boebert, shortly after she opened her restaurant, Shooters Grill, in the town of Rifle, a man was 'beaten to death' outside the diner: When I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically [beaten] to death. There were no weapons involved. He was [beaten] to death by another man's hand. I have a lot of young girls that work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I'm five foot tall. I barely weigh 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor, to defend myself with. Talk about women's rights - don't take my right away to protect myself. However, some journalists and news outlets were quick to challenge the accuracy of Boebert's story, calling it 'a lie,' 'debunked,' and 'bogus.' Those reports pointed to a September 2020 article published by the Colorado Sun, which presented the following account: The Rifle Police Department has no record of such a murder. A man did die on the sidewalk down the street from Shooters in the early morning of Aug. 22, 2013. Initially, it was investigated as a possible homicide, but an autopsy determined the man died from a drug overdose. Snopes set out to investigate the facts surrounding Boebert's story. We obtained official Rifle Police Department reports, and an autopsy and toxicology report. Based on those documents, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False' as to Boebert's claims. A man did die after being found close to her restaurant, on Aug. 22, 2013, and he had been involved in a physical altercation earlier that night. However, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a drug overdose. Furthermore, the location where he was found was not 'outside' of Shooters Grill, or even in an adjacent alleyway. What Boebert Says Happened Boebert is the proprietor of Shooter's Grill, on East Third Street in Rifle. It's not clear exactly when she first opened the establishment, but she officially registered it as a business on Feb. 25, 2013, according to documents held by the Colorado Secretary of State's office. In 2014, Boebert became something of a celebrity, due to one novel feature of the restaurant - customers, and also Boebert's largely female staff, were permitted and even encouraged to openly carry licensed handguns inside the restaurant. Local and national news coverage followed, including segments on CNN and ABC News. On a few occasions since then, Boebert has told the story of a fatal assault outside of or near the restaurant, and cited it as one of the main reasons why she decided to arm herself at work. The earliest instance we could find came in August 2014, in an interview she gave to The Daily Sentinel newspaper in Grand Junction, Colorado: 'A little while after we opened there was an altercation in the alley behind here,' she explains while tossing a handful of pepper into the sausage gravy. 'A man was assaulted and he ended up dying, and that really scared me. It made me feel that I needed to get my concealed carry (permit).' That decision, quietly made, led to Shooters being known as the restaurant where the servers are openly armed. During her 2020 Congressional race, Boebert recounted the story again, this time in a December 2019 interview with the Durango Herald: 'There was an altercation in our back alley where a man was physically beaten to death, and it immediately prompted the question, 'How will I defend my people?' So I began to carry that day,' Boebert said. 'A few weeks later, some of my waitresses asked if they could carry, as well, and they already had their conceal carry permits and had their guns in their purses, and we all agreed that none of us were comfortable having our guns unattended in our purses in the back, so they began to carry, as well.' So Boebert's presentation of the story has been consistent on the key points: an altercation; a fatal assault without a weapon; shortly after she opened Shooters Grill; outside or in an alley next to the restaurant. What Actually Happened Snopes invited a spokesperson and an adviser to Boebert to provide further details of the incident, as well as any documentation, records or news reports that would corroborate her descriptions. We did not receive a response of any kind from them. We also asked Rifle Police Department for details of any serious or fatal assaults, or discoveries of dead bodies in the vicinity of Shooters Grill, between February 2013 and August 2014. In response, Rifle police told us only one homicide investigation had taken place in that time period and made available a 51-page report on the Aug. 22, 2013, incident referred to in the Colorado Sun's article from last year. The full report is available here. Rifle police redacted certain names and details related to an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the incident. In addition to that, Snopes made the decision to redact multiple names, phone numbers, and addresses in order to protect the privacy of several Rifle police officers, medical personnel, and members of the public, and because those details were not relevant to the substance of this fact check. Based on several police reports and witness statements contained within the dossier provided to Snopes, the following is a summary of the key facts. Some of the details might be disturbing to some readers. In the early hours of Aug. 22, 2013, Anthony Royal Green, 37, was found lying on the ground in the 200 block of Railroad Avenue, in Rifle. That location is not immediately outside Shooters Grill, or in an adjacent alleyway, but it is within one block and roughly one minute's walk away: One witness said he approached Green, who had injuries to his face and said he had been 'jumped.' The witness said he helped Green to his feet, but Green then staggered and collapsed again on the ground. Separately, a Rifle police officer wrote that he arrived at the 200 block of Railroad Avenue shortly after midnight, and found Green lying on the ground, and the witness next to him. The officer said Green had a gash over his left eye, and cuts to his face, was not breathing and did not have a discernible pulse. The officer said that shortly after that, Green's eyes rolled back in his head and blood began to emerge from his mouth. That officer and another officer performed CPR, before medics arrived and took over, subsequently transporting Green to hospital. He was pronounced dead in the hospital later that night. While performing CPR, the officer said he noticed a small bag of white powder 'consistent with methamphetamine,' next to Green, which he later confiscated Another Rifle police officer wrote that a small pipe, which appeared to have been used to smoke methamphetamine, was found in Green's pocket. The same officer tested a sample of the white powder found on the ground next to Green, and wrote that it tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Two witnesses told police officers that, earlier in the night, they had seen Green 'tussling' or fighting with another man and a juvenile, and that at one point Green had knocked the other man to the ground, either by punching or pushing him. The fact that Green had a gash over his eye, cuts on his face, and was found lying on the ground, in combination with witness reports that he had been in an altercation earlier in the night, understandably led the Rifle Police Department to initially investigate his death as a potential homicide. However, that possibility was later determined to be 'Unfounded' on the official police report, after the results of the autopsy showed Green had, in fact, died of a drug overdose - as the Colorado Sun correctly reported last year. Snopes obtained a copy of that autopsy report, which can be read here. In it, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Kurtzman found Green's death to be accidental (i.e., not a homicide), and the cause of death 'methamphetamine intoxication.' The injuries to Green's face were 'consistent with a fall,' but there were no associated internal injuries, and they were not the cause of his death. The details of that fatal intoxication can be found in the toxicology report, which we also obtained, and which can be read here. Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

Conclusion Boebert has consistently claimed that a man was 'beaten to death' 'outside' of her restaurant. While a man did die in August 2013 after collapsing close to Shooters Grill, he was not found 'outside' of the establishment. And most importantly, although he was reportedly involved in a physical altercation earlier on the night in question, he was not 'beaten to death,' but rather died of a methamphetamine overdose. As such, we are issuing a rating of 'Mostly False.' Snopes asked the spokesperson and adviser to Boebert whether she was aware of the results of Rifle Police Department's investigation into Green's death, and invited the congresswoman to respond to our findings. We did not receive a response.

On hot summer days, you should avoid filling your car's gas tank completely due to a risk of explosion.

Contradiction

Since at least as far back as 2011, the Internet has been plagued by a viral warning about a danger to car owners, who supposedly create a significant risk of explosion by filling their vehicles' gas tanks to capacity during hot weather: This premise sounds terrifying, but thankfully it makes zero scientific sense. This claim is complete hogwash for two clear and incontrovertible reasons. The first is that the temperature at which fuel auto-ignites (i.e. the temperature at which fuel will combust without a trigger or spark) is around 495ºF. This level is far higher than any temperature a covered, insulated tank could possibly achieve simply by being driven or parked on planet Earth. The second reason concerns the implication that pressure will dangerously build up in car's gas tank during hot weather, leading to higher temperatures within the tank and, somehow, an eventual spontaneous explosion. However, modern fuel tanks must have the ability to vent pressure. Since 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required that all internal combustion engine cars include evaporative emission control (or EVAP) systems. This mechanism collects excess fuel vented from a tank (to maintain even pressure) and, when conditions are correct, returns it to the tank. Prior to the adoption of these regulations, many gas tanks simply relied upon vented gas caps, leading to the occasional release of liquid gas onto the ground or the emission of volatile chemicals into the atmosphere. A significant build-up of pressure would still not occur in such older vehicles, however. When this rumor hit the Middle East in 2015, the local press were quick to debunk it: The new rumour last week was about the dangers of filling car tanks to the maximum capacity in summer months circulated widely on social media. As usual the rumour-monger[ing] attributed the information to an official body - Adnoc Distribution. The rumour mill on social media suggested that fully filled car tanks could cause fires or explosions in summer. Adnoc Distribution confirmed that it has not issued any warnings against filling car tanks to maximum capacity. Khalid Hadi, Vice-President, Marketing and Corporate Communications at Adnoc Distribution, said: 'We would like to point out that filling fuel tanks to full capacity does not imply any risks as all car fuel tanks are designed to withstand pressure build-up in high temperatures.' 'Furthermore, Adnoc Distribution has not registered any such previous incident [of cars exploding]. The rumour attributed to us is based on unknown sources, and is therefore completely false,' Hadi said. The 2018 version of this rumor (reproduced in a graphic at the head of this page) attributes the warning to Pakistan State Oil (PSO), who similarly took to social media to disclaim it: The bottom line: Because the temperature required to spark a spontaneous fire in a gas tank is unreasonably high, and because gas tanks by their nature vent excess pressure, we rank this claim as false.

in summer months circulated widely on social media. As usual the rumour-monger[ing] attributed the information to an official body - Adnoc Distribution. The rumour mill on social media suggested that fully filled car tanks could cause fires or explosions in summer. Adnoc Distribution confirmed that it has not issued any warnings against filling car tanks to maximum capacity. Khalid Hadi, Vice-President, Marketing and Corporate Communications at Adnoc Distribution, said: 'We would like to point out that filling fuel tanks to full capacity does not imply any risks as all car fuel tanks are designed to withstand pressure build-up in high temperatures.' 'Furthermore, Adnoc Distribution has not registered any such previous incident [of cars exploding]. The rumour attributed to us is based on unknown sources, and is therefore completely false,' Hadi said. The 2018 version of this rumor (reproduced in a graphic at the head of this page) attributes the warning to Pakistan State Oil (PSO), who similarly took to social media to disclaim it: The bottom line: Because the temperature required to spark a spontaneous fire in a gas tank is unreasonably high, and because gas tanks by their nature vent excess pressure, we rank this claim as false.

Facebook users are entitled to $17,500 each as compensation over a 'data breach' involving Cambridge Analytica.

Contradiction

An April 2018 article based on a controversy involving Cambridge Analytica's collection of Facebook user data asserted that social media users could receive $17,500 each in compensation over the 'data breach' (which Facebook asserted was not a data breach but rather an unauthorized acquisition of user data by a third party). That original article was soon available only via archived and aggregated versions. It wasn't clear why the original article (published to a little-known web site) had been removed, but even that original walked its headline claim back a few lines into its text: All Facebook Users Could Cash in as much $17,500 Each After Data Breach If your data was harvested through Facebook you could get £12,500 compensation, according to an expert. The social network has come under fire after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica kept users' data. This could cost Facebook £625 billion, which is double the £317b it is worth, law professor Maureen Mapp argued. 'There are about 50 million users whose data was harvested,' she told the Sun. 'Assuming each one of them brought a claim for compensation for distress caused by the data breach ... each individual may be awarded £12,500 as damages ... But a more likely outcome is that users would receive a maximum of £500 each, according to data protection lawyer David Barda, who works for Slater and Gordon. He added: 'The amount of compensation will depend on the level of distress suffered, but Facebook could be facing claims of up to £500 per Facebook user if those users were able to demonstrate their distress.' The article appeared to have been sourced from an 2018 article published by the UK tabloid The Sun. But that highly speculative Sun article pertained solely to users in the UK who might be entitled to damages under a law (Data Protection Act 1998) specific to the UK and not applicable in the United States or elsewhere: In order to get the cash users would have to prove they had suffered distress as a result of the data breach and it would fall under the Data Protection Act. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has apologised for the way user data was handled. Cambridge Analytica is currently being investigated UK Information Commissioner's Office. In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment.

In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment.

Facebook users are entitled to $17,500 each as compensation over a 'data breach' involving Cambridge Analytica.

Contradiction

An April 2018 article based on a controversy involving Cambridge Analytica's collection of Facebook user data asserted that social media users could receive $17,500 each in compensation over the 'data breach' (which Facebook asserted was not a data breach but rather an unauthorized acquisition of user data by a third party). That original article was soon available only via archived and aggregated versions. It wasn't clear why the original article (published to a little-known web site) had been removed, but even that original walked its headline claim back a few lines into its text: All Facebook Users Could Cash in as much $17,500 Each After Data Breach If your data was harvested through Facebook you could get £12,500 compensation, according to an expert. The social network has come under fire after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica kept users' data. This could cost Facebook £625 billion, which is double the £317b it is worth, law professor Maureen Mapp argued. 'There are about 50 million users whose data was harvested,' she told the Sun. 'Assuming each one of them brought a claim for compensation for distress caused by the data breach ... each individual may be awarded £12,500 as damages ... But a more likely outcome is that users would receive a maximum of £500 each, according to data protection lawyer David Barda, who works for Slater and Gordon. He added: 'The amount of compensation will depend on the level of distress suffered, but Facebook could be facing claims of up to £500 per Facebook user if those users were able to demonstrate their distress.' The article appeared to have been sourced from an 2018 article published by the UK tabloid The Sun. But that highly speculative Sun article pertained solely to users in the UK who might be entitled to damages under a law (Data Protection Act 1998) specific to the UK and not applicable in the United States or elsewhere: In order to get the cash users would have to prove they had suffered distress as a result of the data breach and it would fall under the Data Protection Act. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has apologised for the way user data was handled. Cambridge Analytica is currently being investigated UK Information Commissioner's Office. In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment.

In short, the notion that Facebook users could collect money from the social network over the Cambridge Analytica controversy was a highly speculative one that was specific to UK users only and posited £12,500 (US $17,500) as a theoretical maximum rather than a likely payment.

As of late October 2020, the U.S. had reached its peak total of COVID-19 cases and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then.

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 the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics - when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was 'rounding the turn' on the deadly outbreak. By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: 'Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!' Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Claim: 'We Have the Lowest Mortality Rate in the World' First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness - and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern - a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline - often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's 'excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country,' without further explanation. But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities - or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. 'Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed,' according to the CDC. Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the 'observed case fatality ratio,' or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America - the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying - a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates - including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S. - with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19-associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. Claim: Fewer COVID-19 Patients Were Dying There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities. No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langone's Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don't, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased - a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Claim: COVID-19 Cases Were Increasing Because of More Testing Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. 'You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more,' he said. Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases - that's the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the 'positivity rate,' was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data. Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. 'The data speak for themselves,' said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. Claim: 'We Have Great Numbers' After all, the Trump administration listed 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic' as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was 'poorly worded' and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: 'We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers,' in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered 'great numbers' to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then - or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus.

in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus.

As of late October 2020, the U.S. had reached its peak total of COVID-19 cases and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then.

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 the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics - when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was 'rounding the turn' on the deadly outbreak. By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: 'Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!' Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Claim: 'We Have the Lowest Mortality Rate in the World' First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness - and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern - a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline - often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's 'excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country,' without further explanation. But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities - or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. 'Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed,' according to the CDC. Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the 'observed case fatality ratio,' or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America - the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying - a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates - including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S. - with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19-associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. Claim: Fewer COVID-19 Patients Were Dying There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities. No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langone's Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don't, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased - a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Claim: COVID-19 Cases Were Increasing Because of More Testing Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. 'You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more,' he said. Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases - that's the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the 'positivity rate,' was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data. Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. 'The data speak for themselves,' said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. Claim: 'We Have Great Numbers' After all, the Trump administration listed 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic' as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was 'poorly worded' and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: 'We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers,' in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered 'great numbers' to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then - or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus.

in summer and fall. For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough - as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing - not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant - when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an 'exacerbation of the original first wave' of COVID-19 cases. Claim: 'We're Rounding The Turn' To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends: Nationally, the rate of positive tests was steadily increasing, and most states surpassed the WHO's 5% threshold for when government could begin easing restrictions on social distancing. The average rate of daily COVID-19 deaths was remaining fairly stagnant, hovering below 860. The U.S.'s average number of new cases per day was increasing - not decreasing. But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis - rather than nationally - which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress. As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, 'the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave,' with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change. Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. 'We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline,' the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control - no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters. 'We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not,' Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as 'rounding the turn' on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim 'False.'Recent Updates This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus.

U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.

Contradiction

Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.

Contradiction

Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.

Contradiction

Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

U.S. President Donald Trump has a clear path to victory through the 12th Amendment because there is evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.

Contradiction

Additional reading: What Happens If Donald Trump Doesn't Concede? On Nov. 7, The Associated Press projected that Joe Biden would become the 46th president of the United States. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have plagued social media both before and after Election Day, many purporting to describe widespread voter fraud. However, no evidence exists of any widespread voter irregularities. In fact, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Nov. 12 statement that reported the 2020 U.S. presidential election was 'the most secure in American history.' The Associated Press reported: It's hard to put it any more bluntly: 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.' Rejecting President Donald Trump's persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. It was, they declare, resorting to Trump's sort of dramatic language, 'the most secure in American history.' On Nov. 17, President Donald Trump fired Christopher Krebs, the director of CISA, the same organization that issued the statement quoted by the Associated Press. Krebs was a Trump appointee. More than two weeks after Election Day, one of the more persistent rumors on social media claimed that the 12th Amendment would give Trump a 'path to victory' because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud in key swing states.' The rumor also said that Republican-controlled state legislatures in states where Biden won would perhaps decline to certify results, or vote to allow Trump electors to replace Biden electors. One Trump supporter tweeted: 'Let's just wait for the 12th Amendment to take place! Trump wins!' Another tweet that received thousands of retweets and likes read: 'It's actually kinda convenient that Democrats are so ignorant of the Constitution because they have no idea what the 12th Amendment is about to do to them.' Graham Ledger, a former host of a prime-time show on One America News (OAN), a far-right cable news network, also tweeted that state legislatures run by Republican majorities needed to 'stand up for 'We the People,'' effectively asking politicians to do the opposite by overturning the will of the people based on debunked conspiracy theories: The tweet claimed that Trump could win and be inaugurated for a second term on Jan. 20, 2021, because of the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 1, both of which address the electoral-vote process. Ledger described Trump's purported 'path to victory' in the video linked in the tweet, with the 'path to victory' portion running from 26:58-32:39. In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

In sum, Ledger claimed there was a 'constitutional path to victory' in Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment, 'to not allow all the votes to be certified,' because there was 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud.' This was false. Graham pushed debunked conspiracy theories about purported 'fraud' taking place in connection to Dominion Voting Software. Ledger also said that states with Republican-led legislatures don't have to certify the ballots cast by its citizens, and instead, states can simply ignore the fact that more American citizens voted for Biden in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He said state legislatures should choose to not certify results, and wait for a vote in the House of Representatives. He linked all of this to the 'voter fraud' for which there has been no evidence. He also referred to it as 'malfeasance.' The Post-Election Electoral Process After the American people vote in a presidential election, each state certifies its results after all votes are counted. Following certification, the state's electors cast votes for the state. In 2020, that date was set for Dec. 14. For example, if a majority of votes in a state were for Trump, and that state has 16 votes in the Electoral College, then 16 Republican electors would end up voting on behalf of the state for Trump and Mike Pence on Dec. 14. The same would go for a state where a majority of voters chose Biden on their ballots. Electors are chosen for each party, meaning that half of all electors that were chosen don't end up voting in December if their party doesn't win in a particular state. For example, Trump won the state of Mississippi, meaning that Democratic electors chosen by Election Day would not vote in December. The Brookings Institution noted that when electors vote in December, 'the winning side in all but Maine and Nebraska gets all the state's electoral votes regardless of the popular vote division.' The National Archives detailed that Maine and Nebraska 'have proportional distribution of the electors,' and 'the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.' The 12th Amendment The 12th Amendment describes the procedure for electors choosing a president and vice president, and what to do in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. A tie did not occur in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, nor is it expected to occur when electors meet to vote for their respective states in December. It's unclear why Graham Ledger and others have cited the 12th Amendment as the 'path to victory' for Trump, seeing as it does not provide a path to victory. 'Faithless Electors' In 2020, electors for each state and the District of Columbia will vote for president and vice president on Dec. 14, but according to Business Insider, some may certify results by Dec. 8. When the electors cast votes by Dec. 14, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from July 6 may receive mentions in newspapers and on blogs. The Associated Press reported that the court unanimously ruled that 'states can require presidential electors to back their states' popular vote winner in the Electoral College.' The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway. So-called 'faithless electors' have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. A state may instruct 'electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture. The Associated Press projected that President-elect Biden had 306 votes in the Electoral College to Trump's 232. A difference of 74 votes is not 'just a few electoral votes.' Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Ledger's tweet specifically mentioned Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is not one of the 32 states with 'faithless elector' laws, meaning that Georgia's electors are not bound by law to vote for the candidate in the winning party. However, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its 16 electors 'are avowed Biden supporters who have worked for years to flip Georgia, which last voted for a Democrat for president in 1992.' The Democratic electors were not expected to surprisingly vote for Trump on Dec. 14, especially after a state audit was conducted, which is similar to a recount. On Nov. 19, following the audit, the Associated Press called the race for Joe Biden. Unlike Georgia, the two Big Ten Conference states of Wisconsin and Michigan are two of the 32 states that do, in fact, have 'faithless elector' laws. This means that, following Biden's wins in both states, their Democratic electors would be bound by law to vote for their party's candidate on Dec. 14. Wisconsin has 10 electors, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that electors were 'unlikely go against the popular vote.' Michigan has 16 electors, and all are expected to vote for Biden. Additionally, for example, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, the state's GOP leader, told the nonprofit publication Bridge Michigan that Biden won the election, and that the Michigan Legislature would not take action to give Trump electors over Biden. Shirkey and the Republican speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield, were summoned to meet with Trump at the White House on Nov. 20. Chatfield previously tweeted on Nov. 6: 'Let me be very clear: whoever gets the most votes will win Michigan! Period. End of story. Then we move on.' Shirkey also told Bridge Michigan that he recommended Trump should begin helping Biden's transition team. A debacle involving Republican canvassers' refusal to certify results in Wayne County, Michigan, the state's most populous county, was not expected to stop Biden's victory in the state. A court order or the state board were named as ways of likely resolving the situation. The state of Pennsylvania does not have a 'faithless elector' law. Marie Albiges for Spotlight PA reported that Pennsylvania's Democratic electors 'are state and local elected officials, political party leaders, and others who traditionally have strong connections to the party.' Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa, told Spotlight PA that 'they tend to be loyal, partisan, and faithful to the party, and 'will reliably transfer the preferences of voters.'' State Legislatures Ledger's tweet also mentioned that because of 'evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud,' Republican legislatures 'need to stand up for We the People!' However, American citizens already cast their votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. There has been no evidence of 'massive and coordinated voter fraud.' A state legislature's vote to overturn the will of its citizens based on the absence of evidence was not expected to occur. On Nov. 19, Reuters reported that Trump had lobbied Republican-controlled state legislatures where Joe Biden won to vote instead to give electoral votes to the president: Asked at a news conference on Thursday if the campaign's aim was to block state certifications so Republican lawmakers could pick electors, Giuliani laughed and said the goal was to get around what he called an 'outrageous iron curtain of censorship.' Election officials and experts believe the Trump campaign has little chance of success. 'The results in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not particularly close, and the Trump campaign has come forth with no facts or legal theory that would justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters or throwing out the election results,' said Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. 'This is a dangerous though almost certainly ineffective attempt to thwart the will of the voters or to delegitimize a Biden presidency based upon false claims of a stolen election,' he said. Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives Ledger's video mentioned that he wanted states to not certify results, so that down the line the U.S. House would have to take up the matter. It's not expected to come before the House in this manner, but hypothetically, if it did, each state would have one vote, and each vote would depend on whether the state had a majority of Democratic or Republican members. Donald Brand, a professor at College of the Holy Cross, described the situation in The Conversation: If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election. Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here's why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote. That voting procedure gives equal representation to California - population 40 million - and Wyoming, population 600,000. No 'Path to Victory' In following the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer a realistic 'path to victory' for Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Ledger, Trump attorney Sidney Powell, and others claimed there was evidence of massive and coordinated voter fraud or irregularities in key swing states. However, there has been no evidence presented, and on top of that, CISA said the 2020 election was 'the most secure in American history.' It appeared that, with Trump's defeat, his supporters and those who represent him were attempting to find a way for state governments to overturn the will of the people so that he could serve two consecutive terms. For this to happen, several states would need to work in concert to disregard millions of ballots cast by American citizens, instead finding a way for Trump to continue for four more years in the White House, even after losing the popular vote by nearly 6 million votes.

A Darboy Walmart shopper encountered human traffickers using an unexpected menstrual period as a ruse, and a nearby police officer confirmed the interaction was a 'new trick' used to abduct women.

Contradiction

On 7 August 2016 Facebook user Megan Erickson published the following post to Facebook, reporting she narrowly avoided being abducted in the parking lot of a Walmart in Darboy, Wisconsin: Attention women!! Husbands, fathers,and brothers too!! Tell this story to everyone you know!!! Today (08/07/16) while leaving walmart in Darboy,WI at about 4:45pm a woman in her 20s approached me and in an embarrassed hushed tone said i started my period and i should come to her car and get her sweatshirt to tie around my waist and i could just keep it. To most this sounds like an innocent, kind hearted gesture from one woman to another but what she didn't know is that i had a hysterectomy about 8 months ago...i can't have periods. A guy the next row over heard me telling her i was fine and that I'm going straight home and she started to argue with me about coming to her car and he came over and said hey how's it going long time no see and i played along for a moment thinking i possibly knew him from work and when i turned back to tell the woman that I'm not interested she was gone. The guy introduced himself as John Meldais(sp?) and said he's up from Milwaukee visiting his mom and he's a police officer. He explained to me that this trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women and he offered to stay with me while i contacted local police and gave my report. I'm grateful he was there today or who knows what might have happened! Ladies don't believe anyone you don't know! We see this on the news and feel awful for those involved but think it'll never happen to us. Don't be a victim! Erickson maintained that a woman attempted to lure her to the stranger's vehicle under the auspices of sparing her (i.e., Erickson) further embarrassment due to the unexpected start of a menstrual period staining her clothes. However, Erickson said that she was surprised by the claim due to confirmed and permanent amenorrhea (i.e., absence of menstruation). As an alleged scheme for luring human trafficking victims, the scenario presented here doesn't sound like a well-thought out one. Most women are roughly aware of when to expect their monthly cycles (or regularly use hormonal birth control, which regulates periods), and even if the bizarre proposal initially fooled a tiny pool of woman, those putative victims - already on the way back to their own cars - could simply hotfoot it home in their own vehicles and change clothes rather than visiting a stranger's car to take someone else's clothing The claim was already treading a line of dubious plausibility when it went on to include the presence of a visiting police officer within earshot. As is common in viral Facebook kidnap warning posts, the 'ambient police officer' character provides the narrative service of explaining what was otherwise a perplexing interaction. Erickson stated that the traveling cop warned her that the 'trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women' and offered to wait with her while she contacted police but did not himself intervene. (Had the officer been out of earshot, the anecdote likely wouldn't have worked as a parable.) Erickson asserted that she was not just passing on a story, claiming that the incident personally happened to her on 7 August 2016: Erickson's account of a near-miss was one of dozens of pearl-clutching Facebook posts warning women about the convoluted means by which human trafficking scouts purportedly lure prey in popular in retail environments (and occasionally other public spaces). In June 2016 two similar stories of human traffickers circulated in Louisiana and Rochester, Minnesota about public parks, and a July 2016 viral warning about Kay Jewelers' rings-as-bait at a Wisconsin mall was one of the many circulating in perpetuity about human traffickers and big box stores' parking lots. During the summer of 2015, countless 'human trafficking warning' Facebook and social media posts went viral despite the fact such stories rarely (if ever) reflected realistic dangers: In May 2015, a woman warned of a later-debunked incident at an Oklahoma Hobby Lobby store; in June 2015, Twitter was overrun with tweets about sex slavery rings targeting college kids at summer job interviews; and later that same month a long-circulating theme park abduction urban legend popped up again. Those popular warnings bred a frightening (and fabricated) story about purported teenaged abductors (using heroin-filled syringes to drug victims) at a Denton, Texas, Dillards department store, a claim from a woman who maintained she narrowly avoided human traffickers using gift bags as bait in the parking lot of a Hickory, North Carolina, Walmart store, and subsequent rumors claimed Target stores in Tampa, Longview (Texas), and Houston were sex trafficking scouting hotbeds. In all instances, the described interactions turned out to be misunderstood, vastly overstated, or entirely fabricated (such as a woman's claim about an unsettling encounter at a Michigan Kroger store) and were typically appended with lengthy treatises about how such narrow misses are every day occurrences that could happen to you. A common thread among the stories is a suggestion that abductors use gifts or promises of assistance to disarm female shoppers, as if such a ruse were necessary to abduct a person. The tales possibly served a greater purpose as talismans, providing readers with a belief that horrible tragedies were avoidable if they managed to resist gift bags, free rings, or other distracting objects. In the retellings, readers and spreaders of the rumors could feel they remained one step ahead of crafty criminals, well equipped to prevent themselves from becoming victims. These warnings posit the unlikely scenario abductors will opt to risk approaching randomly-chosen women, conspicuously attempt a questionable engagement ploy, and risk capture or notice by law enforcement agents or store security. Age-old urban legends about robbers enticing victims with perfume samples persist and evolve in large part due to the entrenched belief that criminals can and do operate in this fashion; consequently, people are primed by years of exposure to the rumors to interpret any and all atypical parking lot encounters as affirmative of near-misses with abductors: Indeed, we routinely receive e-mails from women who have had encounters with folks vending perfume in parking lots and who have concluded (based on nothing but spurious rumor) that they were about to be robbed. They write to report we're all wrong about this sort of robbery not taking place because hadn't they themselves almost had it happen to them? That no 'knockout potions' were offered to them and no robberies (completed or attempted) took place does little to dissuade them from their certainty that they came within a hair's breadth of harm at the hands of some innocent freelance perfume sellers. Similar (never substantiated) rumors about $100 bills placed under windshield wipers evidence the same lack of familiarity with the basics of such activity, describing a criminal plot that poses needless risk and a low return on investment for putative abductors or carjackers: Our law enforcement contacts have also noted that although the process described above could be used by carjackers, they were unfamiliar with any cases of cars being taken in this manner, and the scheme outlined ran contrary to their experience of how carjackers operate. Specifically, they said that carjackings are generally crimes of opportunity, committed by persons in need of quick cash or youngsters either out for a thrill or participating in some rite of passage (such as a gang initiation). Carjackers tend to hang around places where motorists have to stop or exit their vehicles (e.g., intersections, gas stations, car washes, ATMs, freeway on- and off-ramps) and then force the drivers out of their automobiles (or simply take off with the temporarily unoccupied cars). Running around parking lots sticking flyers on windshields and then hanging around to wait for drivers to return to their vehicles involves planning and exposure atypical of most carjackers; they're more likely to approach occupied vehicles (particularly luxury cars with high resale value) and force the drivers out (by threatening them with weapons and/or physically pulling them out of their seats). In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

A Darboy Walmart shopper encountered human traffickers using an unexpected menstrual period as a ruse, and a nearby police officer confirmed the interaction was a 'new trick' used to abduct women.

Contradiction

On 7 August 2016 Facebook user Megan Erickson published the following post to Facebook, reporting she narrowly avoided being abducted in the parking lot of a Walmart in Darboy, Wisconsin: Attention women!! Husbands, fathers,and brothers too!! Tell this story to everyone you know!!! Today (08/07/16) while leaving walmart in Darboy,WI at about 4:45pm a woman in her 20s approached me and in an embarrassed hushed tone said i started my period and i should come to her car and get her sweatshirt to tie around my waist and i could just keep it. To most this sounds like an innocent, kind hearted gesture from one woman to another but what she didn't know is that i had a hysterectomy about 8 months ago...i can't have periods. A guy the next row over heard me telling her i was fine and that I'm going straight home and she started to argue with me about coming to her car and he came over and said hey how's it going long time no see and i played along for a moment thinking i possibly knew him from work and when i turned back to tell the woman that I'm not interested she was gone. The guy introduced himself as John Meldais(sp?) and said he's up from Milwaukee visiting his mom and he's a police officer. He explained to me that this trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women and he offered to stay with me while i contacted local police and gave my report. I'm grateful he was there today or who knows what might have happened! Ladies don't believe anyone you don't know! We see this on the news and feel awful for those involved but think it'll never happen to us. Don't be a victim! Erickson maintained that a woman attempted to lure her to the stranger's vehicle under the auspices of sparing her (i.e., Erickson) further embarrassment due to the unexpected start of a menstrual period staining her clothes. However, Erickson said that she was surprised by the claim due to confirmed and permanent amenorrhea (i.e., absence of menstruation). As an alleged scheme for luring human trafficking victims, the scenario presented here doesn't sound like a well-thought out one. Most women are roughly aware of when to expect their monthly cycles (or regularly use hormonal birth control, which regulates periods), and even if the bizarre proposal initially fooled a tiny pool of woman, those putative victims - already on the way back to their own cars - could simply hotfoot it home in their own vehicles and change clothes rather than visiting a stranger's car to take someone else's clothing The claim was already treading a line of dubious plausibility when it went on to include the presence of a visiting police officer within earshot. As is common in viral Facebook kidnap warning posts, the 'ambient police officer' character provides the narrative service of explaining what was otherwise a perplexing interaction. Erickson stated that the traveling cop warned her that the 'trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women' and offered to wait with her while she contacted police but did not himself intervene. (Had the officer been out of earshot, the anecdote likely wouldn't have worked as a parable.) Erickson asserted that she was not just passing on a story, claiming that the incident personally happened to her on 7 August 2016: Erickson's account of a near-miss was one of dozens of pearl-clutching Facebook posts warning women about the convoluted means by which human trafficking scouts purportedly lure prey in popular in retail environments (and occasionally other public spaces). In June 2016 two similar stories of human traffickers circulated in Louisiana and Rochester, Minnesota about public parks, and a July 2016 viral warning about Kay Jewelers' rings-as-bait at a Wisconsin mall was one of the many circulating in perpetuity about human traffickers and big box stores' parking lots. During the summer of 2015, countless 'human trafficking warning' Facebook and social media posts went viral despite the fact such stories rarely (if ever) reflected realistic dangers: In May 2015, a woman warned of a later-debunked incident at an Oklahoma Hobby Lobby store; in June 2015, Twitter was overrun with tweets about sex slavery rings targeting college kids at summer job interviews; and later that same month a long-circulating theme park abduction urban legend popped up again. Those popular warnings bred a frightening (and fabricated) story about purported teenaged abductors (using heroin-filled syringes to drug victims) at a Denton, Texas, Dillards department store, a claim from a woman who maintained she narrowly avoided human traffickers using gift bags as bait in the parking lot of a Hickory, North Carolina, Walmart store, and subsequent rumors claimed Target stores in Tampa, Longview (Texas), and Houston were sex trafficking scouting hotbeds. In all instances, the described interactions turned out to be misunderstood, vastly overstated, or entirely fabricated (such as a woman's claim about an unsettling encounter at a Michigan Kroger store) and were typically appended with lengthy treatises about how such narrow misses are every day occurrences that could happen to you. A common thread among the stories is a suggestion that abductors use gifts or promises of assistance to disarm female shoppers, as if such a ruse were necessary to abduct a person. The tales possibly served a greater purpose as talismans, providing readers with a belief that horrible tragedies were avoidable if they managed to resist gift bags, free rings, or other distracting objects. In the retellings, readers and spreaders of the rumors could feel they remained one step ahead of crafty criminals, well equipped to prevent themselves from becoming victims. These warnings posit the unlikely scenario abductors will opt to risk approaching randomly-chosen women, conspicuously attempt a questionable engagement ploy, and risk capture or notice by law enforcement agents or store security. Age-old urban legends about robbers enticing victims with perfume samples persist and evolve in large part due to the entrenched belief that criminals can and do operate in this fashion; consequently, people are primed by years of exposure to the rumors to interpret any and all atypical parking lot encounters as affirmative of near-misses with abductors: Indeed, we routinely receive e-mails from women who have had encounters with folks vending perfume in parking lots and who have concluded (based on nothing but spurious rumor) that they were about to be robbed. They write to report we're all wrong about this sort of robbery not taking place because hadn't they themselves almost had it happen to them? That no 'knockout potions' were offered to them and no robberies (completed or attempted) took place does little to dissuade them from their certainty that they came within a hair's breadth of harm at the hands of some innocent freelance perfume sellers. Similar (never substantiated) rumors about $100 bills placed under windshield wipers evidence the same lack of familiarity with the basics of such activity, describing a criminal plot that poses needless risk and a low return on investment for putative abductors or carjackers: Our law enforcement contacts have also noted that although the process described above could be used by carjackers, they were unfamiliar with any cases of cars being taken in this manner, and the scheme outlined ran contrary to their experience of how carjackers operate. Specifically, they said that carjackings are generally crimes of opportunity, committed by persons in need of quick cash or youngsters either out for a thrill or participating in some rite of passage (such as a gang initiation). Carjackers tend to hang around places where motorists have to stop or exit their vehicles (e.g., intersections, gas stations, car washes, ATMs, freeway on- and off-ramps) and then force the drivers out of their automobiles (or simply take off with the temporarily unoccupied cars). Running around parking lots sticking flyers on windshields and then hanging around to wait for drivers to return to their vehicles involves planning and exposure atypical of most carjackers; they're more likely to approach occupied vehicles (particularly luxury cars with high resale value) and force the drivers out (by threatening them with weapons and/or physically pulling them out of their seats). In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

A Darboy Walmart shopper encountered human traffickers using an unexpected menstrual period as a ruse, and a nearby police officer confirmed the interaction was a 'new trick' used to abduct women.

Contradiction

On 7 August 2016 Facebook user Megan Erickson published the following post to Facebook, reporting she narrowly avoided being abducted in the parking lot of a Walmart in Darboy, Wisconsin: Attention women!! Husbands, fathers,and brothers too!! Tell this story to everyone you know!!! Today (08/07/16) while leaving walmart in Darboy,WI at about 4:45pm a woman in her 20s approached me and in an embarrassed hushed tone said i started my period and i should come to her car and get her sweatshirt to tie around my waist and i could just keep it. To most this sounds like an innocent, kind hearted gesture from one woman to another but what she didn't know is that i had a hysterectomy about 8 months ago...i can't have periods. A guy the next row over heard me telling her i was fine and that I'm going straight home and she started to argue with me about coming to her car and he came over and said hey how's it going long time no see and i played along for a moment thinking i possibly knew him from work and when i turned back to tell the woman that I'm not interested she was gone. The guy introduced himself as John Meldais(sp?) and said he's up from Milwaukee visiting his mom and he's a police officer. He explained to me that this trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women and he offered to stay with me while i contacted local police and gave my report. I'm grateful he was there today or who knows what might have happened! Ladies don't believe anyone you don't know! We see this on the news and feel awful for those involved but think it'll never happen to us. Don't be a victim! Erickson maintained that a woman attempted to lure her to the stranger's vehicle under the auspices of sparing her (i.e., Erickson) further embarrassment due to the unexpected start of a menstrual period staining her clothes. However, Erickson said that she was surprised by the claim due to confirmed and permanent amenorrhea (i.e., absence of menstruation). As an alleged scheme for luring human trafficking victims, the scenario presented here doesn't sound like a well-thought out one. Most women are roughly aware of when to expect their monthly cycles (or regularly use hormonal birth control, which regulates periods), and even if the bizarre proposal initially fooled a tiny pool of woman, those putative victims - already on the way back to their own cars - could simply hotfoot it home in their own vehicles and change clothes rather than visiting a stranger's car to take someone else's clothing The claim was already treading a line of dubious plausibility when it went on to include the presence of a visiting police officer within earshot. As is common in viral Facebook kidnap warning posts, the 'ambient police officer' character provides the narrative service of explaining what was otherwise a perplexing interaction. Erickson stated that the traveling cop warned her that the 'trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women' and offered to wait with her while she contacted police but did not himself intervene. (Had the officer been out of earshot, the anecdote likely wouldn't have worked as a parable.) Erickson asserted that she was not just passing on a story, claiming that the incident personally happened to her on 7 August 2016: Erickson's account of a near-miss was one of dozens of pearl-clutching Facebook posts warning women about the convoluted means by which human trafficking scouts purportedly lure prey in popular in retail environments (and occasionally other public spaces). In June 2016 two similar stories of human traffickers circulated in Louisiana and Rochester, Minnesota about public parks, and a July 2016 viral warning about Kay Jewelers' rings-as-bait at a Wisconsin mall was one of the many circulating in perpetuity about human traffickers and big box stores' parking lots. During the summer of 2015, countless 'human trafficking warning' Facebook and social media posts went viral despite the fact such stories rarely (if ever) reflected realistic dangers: In May 2015, a woman warned of a later-debunked incident at an Oklahoma Hobby Lobby store; in June 2015, Twitter was overrun with tweets about sex slavery rings targeting college kids at summer job interviews; and later that same month a long-circulating theme park abduction urban legend popped up again. Those popular warnings bred a frightening (and fabricated) story about purported teenaged abductors (using heroin-filled syringes to drug victims) at a Denton, Texas, Dillards department store, a claim from a woman who maintained she narrowly avoided human traffickers using gift bags as bait in the parking lot of a Hickory, North Carolina, Walmart store, and subsequent rumors claimed Target stores in Tampa, Longview (Texas), and Houston were sex trafficking scouting hotbeds. In all instances, the described interactions turned out to be misunderstood, vastly overstated, or entirely fabricated (such as a woman's claim about an unsettling encounter at a Michigan Kroger store) and were typically appended with lengthy treatises about how such narrow misses are every day occurrences that could happen to you. A common thread among the stories is a suggestion that abductors use gifts or promises of assistance to disarm female shoppers, as if such a ruse were necessary to abduct a person. The tales possibly served a greater purpose as talismans, providing readers with a belief that horrible tragedies were avoidable if they managed to resist gift bags, free rings, or other distracting objects. In the retellings, readers and spreaders of the rumors could feel they remained one step ahead of crafty criminals, well equipped to prevent themselves from becoming victims. These warnings posit the unlikely scenario abductors will opt to risk approaching randomly-chosen women, conspicuously attempt a questionable engagement ploy, and risk capture or notice by law enforcement agents or store security. Age-old urban legends about robbers enticing victims with perfume samples persist and evolve in large part due to the entrenched belief that criminals can and do operate in this fashion; consequently, people are primed by years of exposure to the rumors to interpret any and all atypical parking lot encounters as affirmative of near-misses with abductors: Indeed, we routinely receive e-mails from women who have had encounters with folks vending perfume in parking lots and who have concluded (based on nothing but spurious rumor) that they were about to be robbed. They write to report we're all wrong about this sort of robbery not taking place because hadn't they themselves almost had it happen to them? That no 'knockout potions' were offered to them and no robberies (completed or attempted) took place does little to dissuade them from their certainty that they came within a hair's breadth of harm at the hands of some innocent freelance perfume sellers. Similar (never substantiated) rumors about $100 bills placed under windshield wipers evidence the same lack of familiarity with the basics of such activity, describing a criminal plot that poses needless risk and a low return on investment for putative abductors or carjackers: Our law enforcement contacts have also noted that although the process described above could be used by carjackers, they were unfamiliar with any cases of cars being taken in this manner, and the scheme outlined ran contrary to their experience of how carjackers operate. Specifically, they said that carjackings are generally crimes of opportunity, committed by persons in need of quick cash or youngsters either out for a thrill or participating in some rite of passage (such as a gang initiation). Carjackers tend to hang around places where motorists have to stop or exit their vehicles (e.g., intersections, gas stations, car washes, ATMs, freeway on- and off-ramps) and then force the drivers out of their automobiles (or simply take off with the temporarily unoccupied cars). Running around parking lots sticking flyers on windshields and then hanging around to wait for drivers to return to their vehicles involves planning and exposure atypical of most carjackers; they're more likely to approach occupied vehicles (particularly luxury cars with high resale value) and force the drivers out (by threatening them with weapons and/or physically pulling them out of their seats). In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

A Darboy Walmart shopper encountered human traffickers using an unexpected menstrual period as a ruse, and a nearby police officer confirmed the interaction was a 'new trick' used to abduct women.

Contradiction

On 7 August 2016 Facebook user Megan Erickson published the following post to Facebook, reporting she narrowly avoided being abducted in the parking lot of a Walmart in Darboy, Wisconsin: Attention women!! Husbands, fathers,and brothers too!! Tell this story to everyone you know!!! Today (08/07/16) while leaving walmart in Darboy,WI at about 4:45pm a woman in her 20s approached me and in an embarrassed hushed tone said i started my period and i should come to her car and get her sweatshirt to tie around my waist and i could just keep it. To most this sounds like an innocent, kind hearted gesture from one woman to another but what she didn't know is that i had a hysterectomy about 8 months ago...i can't have periods. A guy the next row over heard me telling her i was fine and that I'm going straight home and she started to argue with me about coming to her car and he came over and said hey how's it going long time no see and i played along for a moment thinking i possibly knew him from work and when i turned back to tell the woman that I'm not interested she was gone. The guy introduced himself as John Meldais(sp?) and said he's up from Milwaukee visiting his mom and he's a police officer. He explained to me that this trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women and he offered to stay with me while i contacted local police and gave my report. I'm grateful he was there today or who knows what might have happened! Ladies don't believe anyone you don't know! We see this on the news and feel awful for those involved but think it'll never happen to us. Don't be a victim! Erickson maintained that a woman attempted to lure her to the stranger's vehicle under the auspices of sparing her (i.e., Erickson) further embarrassment due to the unexpected start of a menstrual period staining her clothes. However, Erickson said that she was surprised by the claim due to confirmed and permanent amenorrhea (i.e., absence of menstruation). As an alleged scheme for luring human trafficking victims, the scenario presented here doesn't sound like a well-thought out one. Most women are roughly aware of when to expect their monthly cycles (or regularly use hormonal birth control, which regulates periods), and even if the bizarre proposal initially fooled a tiny pool of woman, those putative victims - already on the way back to their own cars - could simply hotfoot it home in their own vehicles and change clothes rather than visiting a stranger's car to take someone else's clothing The claim was already treading a line of dubious plausibility when it went on to include the presence of a visiting police officer within earshot. As is common in viral Facebook kidnap warning posts, the 'ambient police officer' character provides the narrative service of explaining what was otherwise a perplexing interaction. Erickson stated that the traveling cop warned her that the 'trick is just one of many used to abduct unsuspecting women' and offered to wait with her while she contacted police but did not himself intervene. (Had the officer been out of earshot, the anecdote likely wouldn't have worked as a parable.) Erickson asserted that she was not just passing on a story, claiming that the incident personally happened to her on 7 August 2016: Erickson's account of a near-miss was one of dozens of pearl-clutching Facebook posts warning women about the convoluted means by which human trafficking scouts purportedly lure prey in popular in retail environments (and occasionally other public spaces). In June 2016 two similar stories of human traffickers circulated in Louisiana and Rochester, Minnesota about public parks, and a July 2016 viral warning about Kay Jewelers' rings-as-bait at a Wisconsin mall was one of the many circulating in perpetuity about human traffickers and big box stores' parking lots. During the summer of 2015, countless 'human trafficking warning' Facebook and social media posts went viral despite the fact such stories rarely (if ever) reflected realistic dangers: In May 2015, a woman warned of a later-debunked incident at an Oklahoma Hobby Lobby store; in June 2015, Twitter was overrun with tweets about sex slavery rings targeting college kids at summer job interviews; and later that same month a long-circulating theme park abduction urban legend popped up again. Those popular warnings bred a frightening (and fabricated) story about purported teenaged abductors (using heroin-filled syringes to drug victims) at a Denton, Texas, Dillards department store, a claim from a woman who maintained she narrowly avoided human traffickers using gift bags as bait in the parking lot of a Hickory, North Carolina, Walmart store, and subsequent rumors claimed Target stores in Tampa, Longview (Texas), and Houston were sex trafficking scouting hotbeds. In all instances, the described interactions turned out to be misunderstood, vastly overstated, or entirely fabricated (such as a woman's claim about an unsettling encounter at a Michigan Kroger store) and were typically appended with lengthy treatises about how such narrow misses are every day occurrences that could happen to you. A common thread among the stories is a suggestion that abductors use gifts or promises of assistance to disarm female shoppers, as if such a ruse were necessary to abduct a person. The tales possibly served a greater purpose as talismans, providing readers with a belief that horrible tragedies were avoidable if they managed to resist gift bags, free rings, or other distracting objects. In the retellings, readers and spreaders of the rumors could feel they remained one step ahead of crafty criminals, well equipped to prevent themselves from becoming victims. These warnings posit the unlikely scenario abductors will opt to risk approaching randomly-chosen women, conspicuously attempt a questionable engagement ploy, and risk capture or notice by law enforcement agents or store security. Age-old urban legends about robbers enticing victims with perfume samples persist and evolve in large part due to the entrenched belief that criminals can and do operate in this fashion; consequently, people are primed by years of exposure to the rumors to interpret any and all atypical parking lot encounters as affirmative of near-misses with abductors: Indeed, we routinely receive e-mails from women who have had encounters with folks vending perfume in parking lots and who have concluded (based on nothing but spurious rumor) that they were about to be robbed. They write to report we're all wrong about this sort of robbery not taking place because hadn't they themselves almost had it happen to them? That no 'knockout potions' were offered to them and no robberies (completed or attempted) took place does little to dissuade them from their certainty that they came within a hair's breadth of harm at the hands of some innocent freelance perfume sellers. Similar (never substantiated) rumors about $100 bills placed under windshield wipers evidence the same lack of familiarity with the basics of such activity, describing a criminal plot that poses needless risk and a low return on investment for putative abductors or carjackers: Our law enforcement contacts have also noted that although the process described above could be used by carjackers, they were unfamiliar with any cases of cars being taken in this manner, and the scheme outlined ran contrary to their experience of how carjackers operate. Specifically, they said that carjackings are generally crimes of opportunity, committed by persons in need of quick cash or youngsters either out for a thrill or participating in some rite of passage (such as a gang initiation). Carjackers tend to hang around places where motorists have to stop or exit their vehicles (e.g., intersections, gas stations, car washes, ATMs, freeway on- and off-ramps) and then force the drivers out of their automobiles (or simply take off with the temporarily unoccupied cars). Running around parking lots sticking flyers on windshields and then hanging around to wait for drivers to return to their vehicles involves planning and exposure atypical of most carjackers; they're more likely to approach occupied vehicles (particularly luxury cars with high resale value) and force the drivers out (by threatening them with weapons and/or physically pulling them out of their seats). In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

In summation, the Darboy Walmart warning isinconsistent with the known patterns associated with human traffickers (described at length in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FAQ about human trafficking). The rumor is yet another variation on an urban legend that has circulated for at least two decades, a period during which we've never located any substantiated instances of such an abduction occurring. We contacted the Appleton City Police Department near the Darboy Walmart to ask about the rumor and spoke with a public information officer there. That officer said the department was aware of and investigating the claim, confirming that no calls or reports were made from the Darboy Walmart on 7 August 2016. Law enforcement sources repeatedly explain to us in response to these types of rumors that human traffickers typically recruit victims by attempting to establish relationships (and even a degree of trust) with them; abducting random victims from store parking lots via a convoluted and risky gambit doesn't fit any known pattern of that crime. And again, the presumptive goal of securing targets outside their vehicles could be accomplished much more efficiently by simply intercepting passersby parked in desolate areas of a parking lot with no premise for interaction required. On 8 August 2016, the Appleton Police Department issued a statement via Facebook confirming that the story was 'fabricated': RUMOR CONTROL There is a good likelihood you may have seen a post on social media regarding a suspicious incident at a large box store on E. Calumet Street in Appleton. The incident reportedly occurred on Sunday afternoon. Although the person posting the information claimed the incident had been reported to the police, we didn't have any record of a call for service in the area. We assigned an officer to follow-up on the information. Based on our investigation, we have found the incident was fabricated. The person posting did not realize the power of social media. While they hoped to send of message of vigilance and paying attention to your surroundings, they inadvertently caused people to be fearful of a specific area. They also did not realize their post would be shared thousands of times. While we want people to be vigilant, we do not want them to be scared. Know there are people who will take advantage of you and be prepared on how you will deal with those situations, if they arise. Lastly, don't blindly share information. Because it appears on the internet, it isn't necessarily true. We appreciate the many people who called and sent us messages inquiring about the story. We also appreciate your patience while we investigated the information. Be smart. Be safe.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

The U.S. government was sued and found culpable for the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., but the news media refused to report it.

Contradiction

Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the 'mainstream media' intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed: It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that 'government agencies' participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story - that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene - as 'bullshit.' Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that 'governmental agencies' were party to the conspiracy: THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, 'I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?' And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, 'Killing the Dream' made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, 'It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it.' The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the 'U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination.' (In the event, the verdict referred only to 'governmental agencies' rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the 'allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible': After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination.

A photograph of a family opening gifts on Christmas shows paranormal activity, a demon, or a ghost.

Contradiction

On April 29, 2021, TikTok user @callmemegh posted a video about an interesting photograph. She called it a 'family mystery' and said it 'was taken a few years ago.' The photo from Christmas Day purportedly showed some kind of paranormal activity, a demon, or a ghost. @callmemegh #greenscreen #fyp #unexplained #foryoupage #SkipTheRinse #creepypicture ♬ original sound - Megh In total, @callmemegh posted six videos about the strange photo. They were collectively viewed nearly 400,000 times. Paranormal Activity? On May 9, @scottythemedium stitched the original video. Stitching a video on TikTok allows users to show part of another video before spending the rest of the time commenting on camera about it. In the video from @scottythemedium, which was viewed more than 1 million times in 24 hours, he pointed out the outline of the odd shape on the left side of the photo: This photo is nuts. I look at a lot of paranormal pictures, photographs, video evidence, whatever. Being on a paranormal team for the amount of time I have been, we do a lot of video and photo looking at for paranormal and not paranormal. I was so excited to see this picture. It is so crazy. Look at the outline of the thing standing there. There's no legs. We're gonna do a second video and I'm just gonna green screen it and point to some stuff then I'm just like, as somebody who takes photographs and analyze photographs of paranormal stuff, this photo is just the bomb. It's so good. He then published a second video that took a closer look at the 'paranormal' photo from Christmas Day. 'So unless this girl is a really good Photoshop editor, then this is a real piece of photographic evidence of the paranormal,' he said. 'Amazing.' While the photo did appear to contain a strange figure, there was nothing paranormal about it. The Truth The picture was simply a panoramic photograph gone wrong. The man on his knees in jeans in the center of the picture appeared to have walked left to right and sat on the ground during the time it took to capture the photo. The dark object was the man in jeans just before he sat down. Courtesy: @callmemegh/TikTok One sure way to confirm that this was indeed shot in a panoramic mode was to look up. A curve could be seen along the top of the brick and the ceiling, which is what a panoramic picture would look like. How Panoramic Photos Work Panoramic photographs can be captured with a special mode on professional cameras, as well as iPhone and Android devices. Here's how it works: After switching the phone's camera to the special mode for panoramic photography, the person capturing the picture points the camera and slowly moves left or right to capture a wide field of view. If a person or object moves during the time it takes to shoot the panoramic photo, it could appear distorted, just like the Christmas Day picture. After receiving some comments and taking a closer look, @scottythemedium published a new video where he identified the picture as a panoramic picture. 'In response to the very creepy photo, guess what? I was wrong,' he said. 'That is absolutely one of those panoramic photos that went wrong.' In sum, there was nothing 'paranormal' about the strange photograph. The picture that captured a family opening gifts on Christmas Day simply showed that it's always good to stand still if someone is shooting in panoramic mode.

In sum, there was nothing 'paranormal' about the strange photograph. The picture that captured a family opening gifts on Christmas Day simply showed that it's always good to stand still if someone is shooting in panoramic mode.

A photograph of a family opening gifts on Christmas shows paranormal activity, a demon, or a ghost.

Contradiction

On April 29, 2021, TikTok user @callmemegh posted a video about an interesting photograph. She called it a 'family mystery' and said it 'was taken a few years ago.' The photo from Christmas Day purportedly showed some kind of paranormal activity, a demon, or a ghost. @callmemegh #greenscreen #fyp #unexplained #foryoupage #SkipTheRinse #creepypicture ♬ original sound - Megh In total, @callmemegh posted six videos about the strange photo. They were collectively viewed nearly 400,000 times. Paranormal Activity? On May 9, @scottythemedium stitched the original video. Stitching a video on TikTok allows users to show part of another video before spending the rest of the time commenting on camera about it. In the video from @scottythemedium, which was viewed more than 1 million times in 24 hours, he pointed out the outline of the odd shape on the left side of the photo: This photo is nuts. I look at a lot of paranormal pictures, photographs, video evidence, whatever. Being on a paranormal team for the amount of time I have been, we do a lot of video and photo looking at for paranormal and not paranormal. I was so excited to see this picture. It is so crazy. Look at the outline of the thing standing there. There's no legs. We're gonna do a second video and I'm just gonna green screen it and point to some stuff then I'm just like, as somebody who takes photographs and analyze photographs of paranormal stuff, this photo is just the bomb. It's so good. He then published a second video that took a closer look at the 'paranormal' photo from Christmas Day. 'So unless this girl is a really good Photoshop editor, then this is a real piece of photographic evidence of the paranormal,' he said. 'Amazing.' While the photo did appear to contain a strange figure, there was nothing paranormal about it. The Truth The picture was simply a panoramic photograph gone wrong. The man on his knees in jeans in the center of the picture appeared to have walked left to right and sat on the ground during the time it took to capture the photo. The dark object was the man in jeans just before he sat down. Courtesy: @callmemegh/TikTok One sure way to confirm that this was indeed shot in a panoramic mode was to look up. A curve could be seen along the top of the brick and the ceiling, which is what a panoramic picture would look like. How Panoramic Photos Work Panoramic photographs can be captured with a special mode on professional cameras, as well as iPhone and Android devices. Here's how it works: After switching the phone's camera to the special mode for panoramic photography, the person capturing the picture points the camera and slowly moves left or right to capture a wide field of view. If a person or object moves during the time it takes to shoot the panoramic photo, it could appear distorted, just like the Christmas Day picture. After receiving some comments and taking a closer look, @scottythemedium published a new video where he identified the picture as a panoramic picture. 'In response to the very creepy photo, guess what? I was wrong,' he said. 'That is absolutely one of those panoramic photos that went wrong.' In sum, there was nothing 'paranormal' about the strange photograph. The picture that captured a family opening gifts on Christmas Day simply showed that it's always good to stand still if someone is shooting in panoramic mode.

In sum, there was nothing 'paranormal' about the strange photograph. The picture that captured a family opening gifts on Christmas Day simply showed that it's always good to stand still if someone is shooting in panoramic mode.

Lyft and Uber are offering free rides to impaired drivers on St. Patrick's Day in 2021.

Contradiction

On March 17, 2021, rumors spread of purported free Lyft and Uber rides in the U.S. for impaired drivers on the night of St. Patrick's Day. Readers may have seen headlines such as: 'Uber, Lyft to provide impaired drivers free rides home.' Articles like these did hold some truth. However, there was more to the story. We found no indication that Uber and Lyft were offering free rides nationwide on that day. The stories appeared to pertain mainly to Washington, D.C., and some cities in Indiana. Washington, D.C. The Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) announced that it would offer free rides to up to 1,500 people. The 'free' ride amount for St. Patrick's Day was capped at $15, meaning a cap of $22,500 in total rides. Nearly HALF of U.S. traffic deaths on St. Patrick's Day involve drunk drivers (42%, @NHTSAgov, 2019). This St. Patty's Day, keep the luck of the Irish alive. Don't drink and drive! ☘️ #SoberRide #SaferAtHome https://t.co/6cAYMRtXzy pic.twitter.com/huDeLi3YYL - WRAP.org (@WRAP_org) March 16, 2021 WRAP's 2021 St. Patrick's Day SoberRide® Promo Code will be posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Limited quantities available. Valid for the first 1,500 Lyft passengers who enter the code. The code will be valid from 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, 2021. Enter the code in the app's 'Promo' section. Valid for up to $15 off one ride taken home in the Washington D.C. coverage area. The @DCPoliceDept also tweeted the special offer for impaired drivers. Indiana Some cities in Indiana also offered free rides to impaired drivers on the holiday via Lyft and Uber. More information was available on the Sober Ride Indiana website: Rides are available if they originate in or have a destination of Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend, and West Lafayette between Wednesday, March 12th and Monday, April 5th. Credits can only be redeemed between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The City of Indianapolis Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) tweeted about the special offer to keep the roads safe: Driving under the influence is dangerous for you and for others. Access free Lyft or Uber credits at https://t.co/7Qku5eyXJv-you may save a life. @IndianaCJI pic.twitter.com/IZ6ujaxxtE - Indianapolis OPHS (@IndyOPHS) March 17, 2021 Other States and Cities We were unable to find information on free rides for Lyft and Uber in other locations. However, some cities and states have special programs to get people home safe. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation has featured its SoberRides.org website in the past: Drunk driving can cost you hefty fines, jail time, or even your life. Plan a safe ride home this #StPatricksDay at https://t.co/zANoiS04Zp pic.twitter.com/HcNrwTCPcq - TxDOT (@TxDOT) March 17, 2017 Rides for COVID Vaccinations Separate from St. Patrick's Day, both Lyft and Uber tweeted about options for people who needed help traveling to a COVID-19 vaccination site. In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

Lyft and Uber are offering free rides to impaired drivers on St. Patrick's Day in 2021.

Contradiction

On March 17, 2021, rumors spread of purported free Lyft and Uber rides in the U.S. for impaired drivers on the night of St. Patrick's Day. Readers may have seen headlines such as: 'Uber, Lyft to provide impaired drivers free rides home.' Articles like these did hold some truth. However, there was more to the story. We found no indication that Uber and Lyft were offering free rides nationwide on that day. The stories appeared to pertain mainly to Washington, D.C., and some cities in Indiana. Washington, D.C. The Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) announced that it would offer free rides to up to 1,500 people. The 'free' ride amount for St. Patrick's Day was capped at $15, meaning a cap of $22,500 in total rides. Nearly HALF of U.S. traffic deaths on St. Patrick's Day involve drunk drivers (42%, @NHTSAgov, 2019). This St. Patty's Day, keep the luck of the Irish alive. Don't drink and drive! ☘️ #SoberRide #SaferAtHome https://t.co/6cAYMRtXzy pic.twitter.com/huDeLi3YYL - WRAP.org (@WRAP_org) March 16, 2021 WRAP's 2021 St. Patrick's Day SoberRide® Promo Code will be posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Limited quantities available. Valid for the first 1,500 Lyft passengers who enter the code. The code will be valid from 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, 2021. Enter the code in the app's 'Promo' section. Valid for up to $15 off one ride taken home in the Washington D.C. coverage area. The @DCPoliceDept also tweeted the special offer for impaired drivers. Indiana Some cities in Indiana also offered free rides to impaired drivers on the holiday via Lyft and Uber. More information was available on the Sober Ride Indiana website: Rides are available if they originate in or have a destination of Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend, and West Lafayette between Wednesday, March 12th and Monday, April 5th. Credits can only be redeemed between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The City of Indianapolis Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) tweeted about the special offer to keep the roads safe: Driving under the influence is dangerous for you and for others. Access free Lyft or Uber credits at https://t.co/7Qku5eyXJv-you may save a life. @IndianaCJI pic.twitter.com/IZ6ujaxxtE - Indianapolis OPHS (@IndyOPHS) March 17, 2021 Other States and Cities We were unable to find information on free rides for Lyft and Uber in other locations. However, some cities and states have special programs to get people home safe. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation has featured its SoberRides.org website in the past: Drunk driving can cost you hefty fines, jail time, or even your life. Plan a safe ride home this #StPatricksDay at https://t.co/zANoiS04Zp pic.twitter.com/HcNrwTCPcq - TxDOT (@TxDOT) March 17, 2017 Rides for COVID Vaccinations Separate from St. Patrick's Day, both Lyft and Uber tweeted about options for people who needed help traveling to a COVID-19 vaccination site. In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

Lyft and Uber are offering free rides to impaired drivers on St. Patrick's Day in 2021.

Contradiction

On March 17, 2021, rumors spread of purported free Lyft and Uber rides in the U.S. for impaired drivers on the night of St. Patrick's Day. Readers may have seen headlines such as: 'Uber, Lyft to provide impaired drivers free rides home.' Articles like these did hold some truth. However, there was more to the story. We found no indication that Uber and Lyft were offering free rides nationwide on that day. The stories appeared to pertain mainly to Washington, D.C., and some cities in Indiana. Washington, D.C. The Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) announced that it would offer free rides to up to 1,500 people. The 'free' ride amount for St. Patrick's Day was capped at $15, meaning a cap of $22,500 in total rides. Nearly HALF of U.S. traffic deaths on St. Patrick's Day involve drunk drivers (42%, @NHTSAgov, 2019). This St. Patty's Day, keep the luck of the Irish alive. Don't drink and drive! ☘️ #SoberRide #SaferAtHome https://t.co/6cAYMRtXzy pic.twitter.com/huDeLi3YYL - WRAP.org (@WRAP_org) March 16, 2021 WRAP's 2021 St. Patrick's Day SoberRide® Promo Code will be posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Limited quantities available. Valid for the first 1,500 Lyft passengers who enter the code. The code will be valid from 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, 2021. Enter the code in the app's 'Promo' section. Valid for up to $15 off one ride taken home in the Washington D.C. coverage area. The @DCPoliceDept also tweeted the special offer for impaired drivers. Indiana Some cities in Indiana also offered free rides to impaired drivers on the holiday via Lyft and Uber. More information was available on the Sober Ride Indiana website: Rides are available if they originate in or have a destination of Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend, and West Lafayette between Wednesday, March 12th and Monday, April 5th. Credits can only be redeemed between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The City of Indianapolis Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) tweeted about the special offer to keep the roads safe: Driving under the influence is dangerous for you and for others. Access free Lyft or Uber credits at https://t.co/7Qku5eyXJv-you may save a life. @IndianaCJI pic.twitter.com/IZ6ujaxxtE - Indianapolis OPHS (@IndyOPHS) March 17, 2021 Other States and Cities We were unable to find information on free rides for Lyft and Uber in other locations. However, some cities and states have special programs to get people home safe. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation has featured its SoberRides.org website in the past: Drunk driving can cost you hefty fines, jail time, or even your life. Plan a safe ride home this #StPatricksDay at https://t.co/zANoiS04Zp pic.twitter.com/HcNrwTCPcq - TxDOT (@TxDOT) March 17, 2017 Rides for COVID Vaccinations Separate from St. Patrick's Day, both Lyft and Uber tweeted about options for people who needed help traveling to a COVID-19 vaccination site. In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

Lyft and Uber are offering free rides to impaired drivers on St. Patrick's Day in 2021.

Contradiction

On March 17, 2021, rumors spread of purported free Lyft and Uber rides in the U.S. for impaired drivers on the night of St. Patrick's Day. Readers may have seen headlines such as: 'Uber, Lyft to provide impaired drivers free rides home.' Articles like these did hold some truth. However, there was more to the story. We found no indication that Uber and Lyft were offering free rides nationwide on that day. The stories appeared to pertain mainly to Washington, D.C., and some cities in Indiana. Washington, D.C. The Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) announced that it would offer free rides to up to 1,500 people. The 'free' ride amount for St. Patrick's Day was capped at $15, meaning a cap of $22,500 in total rides. Nearly HALF of U.S. traffic deaths on St. Patrick's Day involve drunk drivers (42%, @NHTSAgov, 2019). This St. Patty's Day, keep the luck of the Irish alive. Don't drink and drive! ☘️ #SoberRide #SaferAtHome https://t.co/6cAYMRtXzy pic.twitter.com/huDeLi3YYL - WRAP.org (@WRAP_org) March 16, 2021 WRAP's 2021 St. Patrick's Day SoberRide® Promo Code will be posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Limited quantities available. Valid for the first 1,500 Lyft passengers who enter the code. The code will be valid from 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, 2021. Enter the code in the app's 'Promo' section. Valid for up to $15 off one ride taken home in the Washington D.C. coverage area. The @DCPoliceDept also tweeted the special offer for impaired drivers. Indiana Some cities in Indiana also offered free rides to impaired drivers on the holiday via Lyft and Uber. More information was available on the Sober Ride Indiana website: Rides are available if they originate in or have a destination of Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend, and West Lafayette between Wednesday, March 12th and Monday, April 5th. Credits can only be redeemed between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The City of Indianapolis Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) tweeted about the special offer to keep the roads safe: Driving under the influence is dangerous for you and for others. Access free Lyft or Uber credits at https://t.co/7Qku5eyXJv-you may save a life. @IndianaCJI pic.twitter.com/IZ6ujaxxtE - Indianapolis OPHS (@IndyOPHS) March 17, 2021 Other States and Cities We were unable to find information on free rides for Lyft and Uber in other locations. However, some cities and states have special programs to get people home safe. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation has featured its SoberRides.org website in the past: Drunk driving can cost you hefty fines, jail time, or even your life. Plan a safe ride home this #StPatricksDay at https://t.co/zANoiS04Zp pic.twitter.com/HcNrwTCPcq - TxDOT (@TxDOT) March 17, 2017 Rides for COVID Vaccinations Separate from St. Patrick's Day, both Lyft and Uber tweeted about options for people who needed help traveling to a COVID-19 vaccination site. In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

Lyft and Uber are offering free rides to impaired drivers on St. Patrick's Day in 2021.

Contradiction

On March 17, 2021, rumors spread of purported free Lyft and Uber rides in the U.S. for impaired drivers on the night of St. Patrick's Day. Readers may have seen headlines such as: 'Uber, Lyft to provide impaired drivers free rides home.' Articles like these did hold some truth. However, there was more to the story. We found no indication that Uber and Lyft were offering free rides nationwide on that day. The stories appeared to pertain mainly to Washington, D.C., and some cities in Indiana. Washington, D.C. The Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) announced that it would offer free rides to up to 1,500 people. The 'free' ride amount for St. Patrick's Day was capped at $15, meaning a cap of $22,500 in total rides. Nearly HALF of U.S. traffic deaths on St. Patrick's Day involve drunk drivers (42%, @NHTSAgov, 2019). This St. Patty's Day, keep the luck of the Irish alive. Don't drink and drive! ☘️ #SoberRide #SaferAtHome https://t.co/6cAYMRtXzy pic.twitter.com/huDeLi3YYL - WRAP.org (@WRAP_org) March 16, 2021 WRAP's 2021 St. Patrick's Day SoberRide® Promo Code will be posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Limited quantities available. Valid for the first 1,500 Lyft passengers who enter the code. The code will be valid from 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 until 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 18, 2021. Enter the code in the app's 'Promo' section. Valid for up to $15 off one ride taken home in the Washington D.C. coverage area. The @DCPoliceDept also tweeted the special offer for impaired drivers. Indiana Some cities in Indiana also offered free rides to impaired drivers on the holiday via Lyft and Uber. More information was available on the Sober Ride Indiana website: Rides are available if they originate in or have a destination of Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, South Bend, and West Lafayette between Wednesday, March 12th and Monday, April 5th. Credits can only be redeemed between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The City of Indianapolis Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) tweeted about the special offer to keep the roads safe: Driving under the influence is dangerous for you and for others. Access free Lyft or Uber credits at https://t.co/7Qku5eyXJv-you may save a life. @IndianaCJI pic.twitter.com/IZ6ujaxxtE - Indianapolis OPHS (@IndyOPHS) March 17, 2021 Other States and Cities We were unable to find information on free rides for Lyft and Uber in other locations. However, some cities and states have special programs to get people home safe. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation has featured its SoberRides.org website in the past: Drunk driving can cost you hefty fines, jail time, or even your life. Plan a safe ride home this #StPatricksDay at https://t.co/zANoiS04Zp pic.twitter.com/HcNrwTCPcq - TxDOT (@TxDOT) March 17, 2017 Rides for COVID Vaccinations Separate from St. Patrick's Day, both Lyft and Uber tweeted about options for people who needed help traveling to a COVID-19 vaccination site. In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

In sum, free rides were not available nationwide via Lyft and Uber on St. Patrick's Day in 2021. However, some cities offered special programs that partnered with the companies. Other cities and states already had options in place for potentially impaired drivers. We previously reported on a similar story about Lyft offering free rides to job seekers who need a way to travel to interviews.

Authentic color photographs showed the Russian Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber.

Contradiction

Since at least 2010, a set of awe-inspiring pictures have been shared in email forwards and on social media. The color photographs purportedly show the Russian Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber. One of the pictures was even displayed in a paid online advertisement: The massive aircraft certainly looked quite heavy. (Courtesy: Levin) However, while the Kalinin K-7 was once a real aircraft from the 1930s, the color pictures in question showed 3-D artist renderings. The Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber is seen from another angle in a 3-D rendering. (Courtesy: Levin) We were able to find the original website that hosted the original images, but it wasn't easy. At first, we thought it might be a fan-created 3-D model for the 'Battlefield V' video game, as one of the color pictures appeared in the /r/BattlefieldV/ subreddit. However, this was incorrect. Lots of reading of old blogs and message boards, combined with reverse image searching, finally led us to the original source. Thanks to a tip from englishrussia.com, we found the source to be a person using the handle 'Levin.' On the original page, which appeared to be from 2007, Levin wrote that his work had been misunderstood: In view of the fact that this work is discussed at various serious forums on aviation and military affairs, and it is being discussed, apparently, without a clear understanding of the purpose of this work and the attitude of the author himself (i.e. me) to what he did here, I want to warn you in advance - everything that lies below is nothing more than the usual techno-fantasy, techno-utopia, if you like - techno-absurdity. There are no serious applications on my part for something that can fly, and there cannot be. This work is an attempt to reproduce, quite possibly taking place in reality in the 30s, an attempt by some hypothetical and not quite healthy and poorly educated designer to build such an absurdity with state money. I can even assume that as a result, this hypothetical poor fellow-designer was again hypothetically arrested and soon shot for senseless waste of folk funds on an especially large scale. ))) And the main task from the point of view of technical reliability here was only to comply with the technical style of those years, so that the engines and other parts did not look taken from other eras. So if there is something worth discussing for aviation connoisseurs, then only this moment is the correspondence of the appearance of the parts and the whole structure in general to the level of aviation development in the early 30s of the 20th century. Levin also confirmed that Adobe Photoshop was not used in the process to make the renders. 'This is not Photoshop. This is 3-D, three-dimensional models.' WarHistoryOnline.com published the history of the real Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber, which was smaller than what was displayed for the 3-D renderings. 'The Kalinin K-7 was a heavy experimental aircraft designed and tested in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s,' the website read. 'It was of unusual configuration with twin booms and large underwing pods housing fixed landing gear and machine gun turrets.' The real Kalinin K-7 was large, but not as massive as the aircraft seen in the 3-D renderings. Unfortunately, the aircraft had a brief history. On Nov. 21, 1933, the aircraft crashed. A flight crew stands in front of a Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber. According to WarHistoryOnline.com, the accident 'killed 14 people aboard and one on the ground.' The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. The very brief first flight showed instability and serious vibration caused by the airframe resonating with the engine frequency. The solution to this was thought to be to shorten and strengthen the tail booms, little being known then about the natural frequencies of structures and their response to vibration. The aircraft completed seven test flights before a crash due to structural failure of one of the tail booms on 21 November 1933. The project was eventually scrapped in 1935. No known color photographs of the aircraft exist today. Levin, the 3-D artist, published more of his computer-generated work on his old website. One of them showed quite the battle in the skies: The Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber battles an unidentified foe in this 3-D rendering. (Courtesy: Levin) In sum, the Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber was real. However, color pictures that appeared in email forwards, social media, and ads were nothing more than 3-D renderings. 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, the Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber was real. However, color pictures that appeared in email forwards, social media, and ads were nothing more than 3-D renderings. 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.

Authentic color photographs showed the Russian Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber.

Contradiction

Since at least 2010, a set of awe-inspiring pictures have been shared in email forwards and on social media. The color photographs purportedly show the Russian Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber. One of the pictures was even displayed in a paid online advertisement: The massive aircraft certainly looked quite heavy. (Courtesy: Levin) However, while the Kalinin K-7 was once a real aircraft from the 1930s, the color pictures in question showed 3-D artist renderings. The Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber is seen from another angle in a 3-D rendering. (Courtesy: Levin) We were able to find the original website that hosted the original images, but it wasn't easy. At first, we thought it might be a fan-created 3-D model for the 'Battlefield V' video game, as one of the color pictures appeared in the /r/BattlefieldV/ subreddit. However, this was incorrect. Lots of reading of old blogs and message boards, combined with reverse image searching, finally led us to the original source. Thanks to a tip from englishrussia.com, we found the source to be a person using the handle 'Levin.' On the original page, which appeared to be from 2007, Levin wrote that his work had been misunderstood: In view of the fact that this work is discussed at various serious forums on aviation and military affairs, and it is being discussed, apparently, without a clear understanding of the purpose of this work and the attitude of the author himself (i.e. me) to what he did here, I want to warn you in advance - everything that lies below is nothing more than the usual techno-fantasy, techno-utopia, if you like - techno-absurdity. There are no serious applications on my part for something that can fly, and there cannot be. This work is an attempt to reproduce, quite possibly taking place in reality in the 30s, an attempt by some hypothetical and not quite healthy and poorly educated designer to build such an absurdity with state money. I can even assume that as a result, this hypothetical poor fellow-designer was again hypothetically arrested and soon shot for senseless waste of folk funds on an especially large scale. ))) And the main task from the point of view of technical reliability here was only to comply with the technical style of those years, so that the engines and other parts did not look taken from other eras. So if there is something worth discussing for aviation connoisseurs, then only this moment is the correspondence of the appearance of the parts and the whole structure in general to the level of aviation development in the early 30s of the 20th century. Levin also confirmed that Adobe Photoshop was not used in the process to make the renders. 'This is not Photoshop. This is 3-D, three-dimensional models.' WarHistoryOnline.com published the history of the real Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber, which was smaller than what was displayed for the 3-D renderings. 'The Kalinin K-7 was a heavy experimental aircraft designed and tested in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s,' the website read. 'It was of unusual configuration with twin booms and large underwing pods housing fixed landing gear and machine gun turrets.' The real Kalinin K-7 was large, but not as massive as the aircraft seen in the 3-D renderings. Unfortunately, the aircraft had a brief history. On Nov. 21, 1933, the aircraft crashed. A flight crew stands in front of a Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber. According to WarHistoryOnline.com, the accident 'killed 14 people aboard and one on the ground.' The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. The very brief first flight showed instability and serious vibration caused by the airframe resonating with the engine frequency. The solution to this was thought to be to shorten and strengthen the tail booms, little being known then about the natural frequencies of structures and their response to vibration. The aircraft completed seven test flights before a crash due to structural failure of one of the tail booms on 21 November 1933. The project was eventually scrapped in 1935. No known color photographs of the aircraft exist today. Levin, the 3-D artist, published more of his computer-generated work on his old website. One of them showed quite the battle in the skies: The Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber battles an unidentified foe in this 3-D rendering. (Courtesy: Levin) In sum, the Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber was real. However, color pictures that appeared in email forwards, social media, and ads were nothing more than 3-D renderings. 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, the Kalinin K-7 heavy bomber was real. However, color pictures that appeared in email forwards, social media, and ads were nothing more than 3-D renderings. 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.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama ordered counterintelligence agents to illegally 'spy' on Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016.

Contradiction

Since the early weeks of U.S. President Donald Trump's presidency, he has alleged a grand scheme by Democratic political opponents to undermine his political agenda by illegally 'spying' on his inner circle of confidants. For example, on March 4, 2017, about six weeks after his inauguration, the president claimed in a series of tweets that Barack Obama, his predecessor, nefariously 'wire tapped' Trump Tower in New York - the headquarters for the Trump Organization - during the 2016 presidential race. The tweet implied that Obama abused his presidential powers to direct U.S. intelligence officials to illegally monitor the Trump campaign during its race against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Since then, Trump has circulated some version of the theory - that the Obama administration or unidentified political opponents 'spied on our campaign illegally' - dozens of times, according to an archive of Trump's social media activity, media interviews, rallies, and press conferences called Fact.ba.se. 'They spied on my campaign, and they got caught,' the president said while accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2020 race against Democratic rival Joe Biden. (See a transcript of the whole speech here.) By September 2020, about six weeks before the 2020 election, the president lumped his opponent in with the alleged conspiracy to undermine his previous campaign. Trump told fans at an Ohio rally on Sept. 21: 'We caught them - and by the way, that's Biden, that's Obama. [...] all of the sleaze bags,' the president said. Below, we unpack the basis for the claim - which refers to a years-long investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election - as well as bipartisan congressional reports and federal records that found no evidence that Obama, or his Democratic allies, illegally launched surveillance efforts. Secret Agents Scrutinized Trump's Inner Circle in 2016 In late July 2016, under the Obama administration, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched a secret probe into the Trump campaign's relationships with Russian agents. To better understand how the investigation came to be - and whether Obama abused his presidential powers to direct secret agents to illegally monitor Trump's campaign - we referred to a report by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released in December 2019. Per that federal document, the FBI launched the covert surveillance effort, code-named 'Crossfire Hurricane,' three days after learning that a Trump aid 'had received some kind of suggestion from Russia' that it could help the Trump campaign uncover information that would damage Clinton and Obama. Roughly one month into the secret investigation, James Comey, then-FBI director, said he told Obama and others about the FBI's surveillance effort, which primarily scrutinized four Trump campaign aides - Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, and Paul Manafort - because of their apparent or suspected ties to the Kremlin. But Comey said he did not describe the operation in detail with the sitting president. The inspector general's report stated: Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI's efforts without providing any specifics. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. In other words, the FBI - not Obama - launched the surveillance effort, and only a handful of counterintelligence agents knew the full scope of the mission, but no evidence showed they gave directions on how it was done. The investigators were acting on orders from FBI leaders - not the president. Then, in May 2017, then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller - a prosecutor who headed the FBI for more than a decade - to take over the FBI's work with a criminal investigation to determine whether Trump had obstructed justice with his allies' alleged ties to Russia. Although Mueller's team did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not obtained sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges, it uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and 'worked to secure that outcome.' Next, we looked for evidence to confirm or disprove that the investigation broke the law to secretly monitor any member of the Trump campaign. We learned the FBI used undercover informants to investigate Trump's inner circle, a routine technique for such investigations into alleged espionage or terrorism. And according to Horowitz' report, the FBI employed 'electronic surveillance' of only one person - Page, who was an adviser to Trump. 'The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the department,' the report stated. However, at the time, the FBI relied on a dossier of unreliable research compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele in its applications for warrants to monitor Page. And it was unclear whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created the special surveillance court for national security cases, would have granted the bureau permission to eavesdrop on Page's conversations had the FBI omitted details from that dossier on its applications. '[It] was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise [the court] of such critical information,' Horowitz' report said. Nonetheless, that misstep gave Trump and his supporters a reason to discredit the entire investigation into the campaign's contact with Russian operatives. As of this report, one member of the investigating team - a former FBI lawyer -pleaded guilty in August 2020 to altering an email the bureau relied on to file the applications to monitor Page, though no other investigator faced charges for breaking law. A review of the FBI's work by John Durham, a federal prosecutor, remained ongoing. We also analyzed a redacted version of a roughly 1,000-page document compiled by the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee released in August 2020. The committee launched its own bipartisan examination into Russia's interference in the 2016 election to gauge what, exactly, the whole ordeal meant for future American elections. (The redacted portions of the document were related to Russia's interference in the 2020 election and classified information as of this writing.) The committee called the report 'the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed,' and it included interviews with members of the Obama administration. In particular, it indirectly tied the former president to the FBI's decision to rely on the dossier in its applications for court warrants to secretly monitor Page, with this language: In early December, President Obama tasked the [Intelligence Community] with a comprehensive assessment of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. FBI - particularly Deputy Director Andy McCabe - requested that the dossier information be included in the assessment, pointing to the President's request for comprehensiveness. CIA analysts pushed back on FBI's request, seeing the memos as uncorroborated and questioning the sourcing. All three primary author agencies eventually compromised on summarizing the allegations in an annex to the assessment. In early January, a principal-level team from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence], CIA, FBI, and [National Security Agency] briefed a highly compartmented version of the full assessment to the President, the President-elect, and the Gang of Eight. Then-FBI Director Comey briefed Trump one-on-one on the contents of the annex. In other words, Obama asked for an update on counterintelligence agents' probe roughly five months after the FBI started its secret investigation, and McCabe reportedly requested that the dossier's information be included in the applications to monitor Page because of the president's wish for comprehensiveness. Although, as in Horowitz' report, no evidence showed Obama or other members of his administration knew the full extent of the investigation, or how it was conducted. Intelligence leaders gave both Trump and Obama a 'highly compartmented version of the full assessment' in early January, according to congressional committee's review. That document also stated the bureau's initial interest in Page was justified. Trump Made the Wiretap Claim 'on a Hunch' Shortly after Trump became aware of the FBI's investigation in spring 2017, per the Senate committee's report, he first claimed without evidence or documentation that political opponents committed a federal crime by ordering the FBI to secretly eavesdrop on the Trump campaign. The posts surprised members of the Trump team, with one aid to the president saying it was unclear to what 'wiretapping' incident he was referring, according to Reuters. The news outlet reported at the time: Under U.S. law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an 'agent of a foreign power' in order to approve a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made allegations in recent days about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign, without offering any evidence. Hours after Trump's tweets, Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis rebutted the allegations, and attempted to debunk Trump's theory. His statement read: 'A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.' Lewis was not the sole dissenting voice from Obama's team. A former senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the DOJ investigation told CNN that Trump's phones were never tapped. 'This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,' said the former official, whom the news outlet did not identify. Additionally, Ben Rhodes, Obama's former deputy national security advisor, tweeted that 'No President can order a wiretap.' Weeks after the president's tweet thread, Comey said the agency had no records to support the claim of wiretapping by the Obama administration, and the DOJ later confirmed that consensus in a court filing (an excerpt of which is below). About two years later, Trump provided insight into his rationale for authoring the posts, which alleged criminal wrongdoing against Obama. Trump said in an April 19, 2019, interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that he authored the tweets about the former president ordering agents to 'wiretap' the Trump Tower on 'a little bit of a hunch,' according to a transcript by Factba.se. Trump said: Now, [Clinton] lost, and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to - really, it's a coup. It's spying. [...] Two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom. [...] If they weren't doing anything wrong, it would have just gone by, nobody would have cared about it. It was pretty insignificant, I thought, when I said it - and that's pretty amazing. In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

Former U.S. President Barack Obama ordered counterintelligence agents to illegally 'spy' on Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016.

Contradiction

Since the early weeks of U.S. President Donald Trump's presidency, he has alleged a grand scheme by Democratic political opponents to undermine his political agenda by illegally 'spying' on his inner circle of confidants. For example, on March 4, 2017, about six weeks after his inauguration, the president claimed in a series of tweets that Barack Obama, his predecessor, nefariously 'wire tapped' Trump Tower in New York - the headquarters for the Trump Organization - during the 2016 presidential race. The tweet implied that Obama abused his presidential powers to direct U.S. intelligence officials to illegally monitor the Trump campaign during its race against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Since then, Trump has circulated some version of the theory - that the Obama administration or unidentified political opponents 'spied on our campaign illegally' - dozens of times, according to an archive of Trump's social media activity, media interviews, rallies, and press conferences called Fact.ba.se. 'They spied on my campaign, and they got caught,' the president said while accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2020 race against Democratic rival Joe Biden. (See a transcript of the whole speech here.) By September 2020, about six weeks before the 2020 election, the president lumped his opponent in with the alleged conspiracy to undermine his previous campaign. Trump told fans at an Ohio rally on Sept. 21: 'We caught them - and by the way, that's Biden, that's Obama. [...] all of the sleaze bags,' the president said. Below, we unpack the basis for the claim - which refers to a years-long investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election - as well as bipartisan congressional reports and federal records that found no evidence that Obama, or his Democratic allies, illegally launched surveillance efforts. Secret Agents Scrutinized Trump's Inner Circle in 2016 In late July 2016, under the Obama administration, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched a secret probe into the Trump campaign's relationships with Russian agents. To better understand how the investigation came to be - and whether Obama abused his presidential powers to direct secret agents to illegally monitor Trump's campaign - we referred to a report by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released in December 2019. Per that federal document, the FBI launched the covert surveillance effort, code-named 'Crossfire Hurricane,' three days after learning that a Trump aid 'had received some kind of suggestion from Russia' that it could help the Trump campaign uncover information that would damage Clinton and Obama. Roughly one month into the secret investigation, James Comey, then-FBI director, said he told Obama and others about the FBI's surveillance effort, which primarily scrutinized four Trump campaign aides - Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, and Paul Manafort - because of their apparent or suspected ties to the Kremlin. But Comey said he did not describe the operation in detail with the sitting president. The inspector general's report stated: Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI's efforts without providing any specifics. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. In other words, the FBI - not Obama - launched the surveillance effort, and only a handful of counterintelligence agents knew the full scope of the mission, but no evidence showed they gave directions on how it was done. The investigators were acting on orders from FBI leaders - not the president. Then, in May 2017, then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller - a prosecutor who headed the FBI for more than a decade - to take over the FBI's work with a criminal investigation to determine whether Trump had obstructed justice with his allies' alleged ties to Russia. Although Mueller's team did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not obtained sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges, it uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and 'worked to secure that outcome.' Next, we looked for evidence to confirm or disprove that the investigation broke the law to secretly monitor any member of the Trump campaign. We learned the FBI used undercover informants to investigate Trump's inner circle, a routine technique for such investigations into alleged espionage or terrorism. And according to Horowitz' report, the FBI employed 'electronic surveillance' of only one person - Page, who was an adviser to Trump. 'The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the department,' the report stated. However, at the time, the FBI relied on a dossier of unreliable research compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele in its applications for warrants to monitor Page. And it was unclear whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created the special surveillance court for national security cases, would have granted the bureau permission to eavesdrop on Page's conversations had the FBI omitted details from that dossier on its applications. '[It] was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise [the court] of such critical information,' Horowitz' report said. Nonetheless, that misstep gave Trump and his supporters a reason to discredit the entire investigation into the campaign's contact with Russian operatives. As of this report, one member of the investigating team - a former FBI lawyer -pleaded guilty in August 2020 to altering an email the bureau relied on to file the applications to monitor Page, though no other investigator faced charges for breaking law. A review of the FBI's work by John Durham, a federal prosecutor, remained ongoing. We also analyzed a redacted version of a roughly 1,000-page document compiled by the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee released in August 2020. The committee launched its own bipartisan examination into Russia's interference in the 2016 election to gauge what, exactly, the whole ordeal meant for future American elections. (The redacted portions of the document were related to Russia's interference in the 2020 election and classified information as of this writing.) The committee called the report 'the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed,' and it included interviews with members of the Obama administration. In particular, it indirectly tied the former president to the FBI's decision to rely on the dossier in its applications for court warrants to secretly monitor Page, with this language: In early December, President Obama tasked the [Intelligence Community] with a comprehensive assessment of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. FBI - particularly Deputy Director Andy McCabe - requested that the dossier information be included in the assessment, pointing to the President's request for comprehensiveness. CIA analysts pushed back on FBI's request, seeing the memos as uncorroborated and questioning the sourcing. All three primary author agencies eventually compromised on summarizing the allegations in an annex to the assessment. In early January, a principal-level team from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence], CIA, FBI, and [National Security Agency] briefed a highly compartmented version of the full assessment to the President, the President-elect, and the Gang of Eight. Then-FBI Director Comey briefed Trump one-on-one on the contents of the annex. In other words, Obama asked for an update on counterintelligence agents' probe roughly five months after the FBI started its secret investigation, and McCabe reportedly requested that the dossier's information be included in the applications to monitor Page because of the president's wish for comprehensiveness. Although, as in Horowitz' report, no evidence showed Obama or other members of his administration knew the full extent of the investigation, or how it was conducted. Intelligence leaders gave both Trump and Obama a 'highly compartmented version of the full assessment' in early January, according to congressional committee's review. That document also stated the bureau's initial interest in Page was justified. Trump Made the Wiretap Claim 'on a Hunch' Shortly after Trump became aware of the FBI's investigation in spring 2017, per the Senate committee's report, he first claimed without evidence or documentation that political opponents committed a federal crime by ordering the FBI to secretly eavesdrop on the Trump campaign. The posts surprised members of the Trump team, with one aid to the president saying it was unclear to what 'wiretapping' incident he was referring, according to Reuters. The news outlet reported at the time: Under U.S. law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an 'agent of a foreign power' in order to approve a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made allegations in recent days about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign, without offering any evidence. Hours after Trump's tweets, Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis rebutted the allegations, and attempted to debunk Trump's theory. His statement read: 'A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.' Lewis was not the sole dissenting voice from Obama's team. A former senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the DOJ investigation told CNN that Trump's phones were never tapped. 'This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,' said the former official, whom the news outlet did not identify. Additionally, Ben Rhodes, Obama's former deputy national security advisor, tweeted that 'No President can order a wiretap.' Weeks after the president's tweet thread, Comey said the agency had no records to support the claim of wiretapping by the Obama administration, and the DOJ later confirmed that consensus in a court filing (an excerpt of which is below). About two years later, Trump provided insight into his rationale for authoring the posts, which alleged criminal wrongdoing against Obama. Trump said in an April 19, 2019, interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that he authored the tweets about the former president ordering agents to 'wiretap' the Trump Tower on 'a little bit of a hunch,' according to a transcript by Factba.se. Trump said: Now, [Clinton] lost, and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to - really, it's a coup. It's spying. [...] Two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom. [...] If they weren't doing anything wrong, it would have just gone by, nobody would have cared about it. It was pretty insignificant, I thought, when I said it - and that's pretty amazing. In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

Former U.S. President Barack Obama ordered counterintelligence agents to illegally 'spy' on Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016.

Contradiction

Since the early weeks of U.S. President Donald Trump's presidency, he has alleged a grand scheme by Democratic political opponents to undermine his political agenda by illegally 'spying' on his inner circle of confidants. For example, on March 4, 2017, about six weeks after his inauguration, the president claimed in a series of tweets that Barack Obama, his predecessor, nefariously 'wire tapped' Trump Tower in New York - the headquarters for the Trump Organization - during the 2016 presidential race. The tweet implied that Obama abused his presidential powers to direct U.S. intelligence officials to illegally monitor the Trump campaign during its race against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Since then, Trump has circulated some version of the theory - that the Obama administration or unidentified political opponents 'spied on our campaign illegally' - dozens of times, according to an archive of Trump's social media activity, media interviews, rallies, and press conferences called Fact.ba.se. 'They spied on my campaign, and they got caught,' the president said while accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2020 race against Democratic rival Joe Biden. (See a transcript of the whole speech here.) By September 2020, about six weeks before the 2020 election, the president lumped his opponent in with the alleged conspiracy to undermine his previous campaign. Trump told fans at an Ohio rally on Sept. 21: 'We caught them - and by the way, that's Biden, that's Obama. [...] all of the sleaze bags,' the president said. Below, we unpack the basis for the claim - which refers to a years-long investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election - as well as bipartisan congressional reports and federal records that found no evidence that Obama, or his Democratic allies, illegally launched surveillance efforts. Secret Agents Scrutinized Trump's Inner Circle in 2016 In late July 2016, under the Obama administration, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched a secret probe into the Trump campaign's relationships with Russian agents. To better understand how the investigation came to be - and whether Obama abused his presidential powers to direct secret agents to illegally monitor Trump's campaign - we referred to a report by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released in December 2019. Per that federal document, the FBI launched the covert surveillance effort, code-named 'Crossfire Hurricane,' three days after learning that a Trump aid 'had received some kind of suggestion from Russia' that it could help the Trump campaign uncover information that would damage Clinton and Obama. Roughly one month into the secret investigation, James Comey, then-FBI director, said he told Obama and others about the FBI's surveillance effort, which primarily scrutinized four Trump campaign aides - Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, and Paul Manafort - because of their apparent or suspected ties to the Kremlin. But Comey said he did not describe the operation in detail with the sitting president. The inspector general's report stated: Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI's efforts without providing any specifics. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. In other words, the FBI - not Obama - launched the surveillance effort, and only a handful of counterintelligence agents knew the full scope of the mission, but no evidence showed they gave directions on how it was done. The investigators were acting on orders from FBI leaders - not the president. Then, in May 2017, then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller - a prosecutor who headed the FBI for more than a decade - to take over the FBI's work with a criminal investigation to determine whether Trump had obstructed justice with his allies' alleged ties to Russia. Although Mueller's team did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not obtained sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges, it uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and 'worked to secure that outcome.' Next, we looked for evidence to confirm or disprove that the investigation broke the law to secretly monitor any member of the Trump campaign. We learned the FBI used undercover informants to investigate Trump's inner circle, a routine technique for such investigations into alleged espionage or terrorism. And according to Horowitz' report, the FBI employed 'electronic surveillance' of only one person - Page, who was an adviser to Trump. 'The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the department,' the report stated. However, at the time, the FBI relied on a dossier of unreliable research compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele in its applications for warrants to monitor Page. And it was unclear whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created the special surveillance court for national security cases, would have granted the bureau permission to eavesdrop on Page's conversations had the FBI omitted details from that dossier on its applications. '[It] was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise [the court] of such critical information,' Horowitz' report said. Nonetheless, that misstep gave Trump and his supporters a reason to discredit the entire investigation into the campaign's contact with Russian operatives. As of this report, one member of the investigating team - a former FBI lawyer -pleaded guilty in August 2020 to altering an email the bureau relied on to file the applications to monitor Page, though no other investigator faced charges for breaking law. A review of the FBI's work by John Durham, a federal prosecutor, remained ongoing. We also analyzed a redacted version of a roughly 1,000-page document compiled by the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee released in August 2020. The committee launched its own bipartisan examination into Russia's interference in the 2016 election to gauge what, exactly, the whole ordeal meant for future American elections. (The redacted portions of the document were related to Russia's interference in the 2020 election and classified information as of this writing.) The committee called the report 'the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed,' and it included interviews with members of the Obama administration. In particular, it indirectly tied the former president to the FBI's decision to rely on the dossier in its applications for court warrants to secretly monitor Page, with this language: In early December, President Obama tasked the [Intelligence Community] with a comprehensive assessment of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. FBI - particularly Deputy Director Andy McCabe - requested that the dossier information be included in the assessment, pointing to the President's request for comprehensiveness. CIA analysts pushed back on FBI's request, seeing the memos as uncorroborated and questioning the sourcing. All three primary author agencies eventually compromised on summarizing the allegations in an annex to the assessment. In early January, a principal-level team from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence], CIA, FBI, and [National Security Agency] briefed a highly compartmented version of the full assessment to the President, the President-elect, and the Gang of Eight. Then-FBI Director Comey briefed Trump one-on-one on the contents of the annex. In other words, Obama asked for an update on counterintelligence agents' probe roughly five months after the FBI started its secret investigation, and McCabe reportedly requested that the dossier's information be included in the applications to monitor Page because of the president's wish for comprehensiveness. Although, as in Horowitz' report, no evidence showed Obama or other members of his administration knew the full extent of the investigation, or how it was conducted. Intelligence leaders gave both Trump and Obama a 'highly compartmented version of the full assessment' in early January, according to congressional committee's review. That document also stated the bureau's initial interest in Page was justified. Trump Made the Wiretap Claim 'on a Hunch' Shortly after Trump became aware of the FBI's investigation in spring 2017, per the Senate committee's report, he first claimed without evidence or documentation that political opponents committed a federal crime by ordering the FBI to secretly eavesdrop on the Trump campaign. The posts surprised members of the Trump team, with one aid to the president saying it was unclear to what 'wiretapping' incident he was referring, according to Reuters. The news outlet reported at the time: Under U.S. law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an 'agent of a foreign power' in order to approve a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made allegations in recent days about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign, without offering any evidence. Hours after Trump's tweets, Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis rebutted the allegations, and attempted to debunk Trump's theory. His statement read: 'A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.' Lewis was not the sole dissenting voice from Obama's team. A former senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the DOJ investigation told CNN that Trump's phones were never tapped. 'This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,' said the former official, whom the news outlet did not identify. Additionally, Ben Rhodes, Obama's former deputy national security advisor, tweeted that 'No President can order a wiretap.' Weeks after the president's tweet thread, Comey said the agency had no records to support the claim of wiretapping by the Obama administration, and the DOJ later confirmed that consensus in a court filing (an excerpt of which is below). About two years later, Trump provided insight into his rationale for authoring the posts, which alleged criminal wrongdoing against Obama. Trump said in an April 19, 2019, interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that he authored the tweets about the former president ordering agents to 'wiretap' the Trump Tower on 'a little bit of a hunch,' according to a transcript by Factba.se. Trump said: Now, [Clinton] lost, and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to - really, it's a coup. It's spying. [...] Two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom. [...] If they weren't doing anything wrong, it would have just gone by, nobody would have cared about it. It was pretty insignificant, I thought, when I said it - and that's pretty amazing. In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

Former U.S. President Barack Obama ordered counterintelligence agents to illegally 'spy' on Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016.

Contradiction

Since the early weeks of U.S. President Donald Trump's presidency, he has alleged a grand scheme by Democratic political opponents to undermine his political agenda by illegally 'spying' on his inner circle of confidants. For example, on March 4, 2017, about six weeks after his inauguration, the president claimed in a series of tweets that Barack Obama, his predecessor, nefariously 'wire tapped' Trump Tower in New York - the headquarters for the Trump Organization - during the 2016 presidential race. The tweet implied that Obama abused his presidential powers to direct U.S. intelligence officials to illegally monitor the Trump campaign during its race against then-Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Since then, Trump has circulated some version of the theory - that the Obama administration or unidentified political opponents 'spied on our campaign illegally' - dozens of times, according to an archive of Trump's social media activity, media interviews, rallies, and press conferences called Fact.ba.se. 'They spied on my campaign, and they got caught,' the president said while accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2020 race against Democratic rival Joe Biden. (See a transcript of the whole speech here.) By September 2020, about six weeks before the 2020 election, the president lumped his opponent in with the alleged conspiracy to undermine his previous campaign. Trump told fans at an Ohio rally on Sept. 21: 'We caught them - and by the way, that's Biden, that's Obama. [...] all of the sleaze bags,' the president said. Below, we unpack the basis for the claim - which refers to a years-long investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election - as well as bipartisan congressional reports and federal records that found no evidence that Obama, or his Democratic allies, illegally launched surveillance efforts. Secret Agents Scrutinized Trump's Inner Circle in 2016 In late July 2016, under the Obama administration, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched a secret probe into the Trump campaign's relationships with Russian agents. To better understand how the investigation came to be - and whether Obama abused his presidential powers to direct secret agents to illegally monitor Trump's campaign - we referred to a report by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released in December 2019. Per that federal document, the FBI launched the covert surveillance effort, code-named 'Crossfire Hurricane,' three days after learning that a Trump aid 'had received some kind of suggestion from Russia' that it could help the Trump campaign uncover information that would damage Clinton and Obama. Roughly one month into the secret investigation, James Comey, then-FBI director, said he told Obama and others about the FBI's surveillance effort, which primarily scrutinized four Trump campaign aides - Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, and Paul Manafort - because of their apparent or suspected ties to the Kremlin. But Comey said he did not describe the operation in detail with the sitting president. The inspector general's report stated: Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI's efforts without providing any specifics. Comey said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' Comey stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. In other words, the FBI - not Obama - launched the surveillance effort, and only a handful of counterintelligence agents knew the full scope of the mission, but no evidence showed they gave directions on how it was done. The investigators were acting on orders from FBI leaders - not the president. Then, in May 2017, then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller - a prosecutor who headed the FBI for more than a decade - to take over the FBI's work with a criminal investigation to determine whether Trump had obstructed justice with his allies' alleged ties to Russia. Although Mueller's team did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not obtained sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges, it uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and 'worked to secure that outcome.' Next, we looked for evidence to confirm or disprove that the investigation broke the law to secretly monitor any member of the Trump campaign. We learned the FBI used undercover informants to investigate Trump's inner circle, a routine technique for such investigations into alleged espionage or terrorism. And according to Horowitz' report, the FBI employed 'electronic surveillance' of only one person - Page, who was an adviser to Trump. 'The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the department,' the report stated. However, at the time, the FBI relied on a dossier of unreliable research compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele in its applications for warrants to monitor Page. And it was unclear whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created the special surveillance court for national security cases, would have granted the bureau permission to eavesdrop on Page's conversations had the FBI omitted details from that dossier on its applications. '[It] was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise [the court] of such critical information,' Horowitz' report said. Nonetheless, that misstep gave Trump and his supporters a reason to discredit the entire investigation into the campaign's contact with Russian operatives. As of this report, one member of the investigating team - a former FBI lawyer -pleaded guilty in August 2020 to altering an email the bureau relied on to file the applications to monitor Page, though no other investigator faced charges for breaking law. A review of the FBI's work by John Durham, a federal prosecutor, remained ongoing. We also analyzed a redacted version of a roughly 1,000-page document compiled by the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee released in August 2020. The committee launched its own bipartisan examination into Russia's interference in the 2016 election to gauge what, exactly, the whole ordeal meant for future American elections. (The redacted portions of the document were related to Russia's interference in the 2020 election and classified information as of this writing.) The committee called the report 'the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed,' and it included interviews with members of the Obama administration. In particular, it indirectly tied the former president to the FBI's decision to rely on the dossier in its applications for court warrants to secretly monitor Page, with this language: In early December, President Obama tasked the [Intelligence Community] with a comprehensive assessment of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. FBI - particularly Deputy Director Andy McCabe - requested that the dossier information be included in the assessment, pointing to the President's request for comprehensiveness. CIA analysts pushed back on FBI's request, seeing the memos as uncorroborated and questioning the sourcing. All three primary author agencies eventually compromised on summarizing the allegations in an annex to the assessment. In early January, a principal-level team from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence], CIA, FBI, and [National Security Agency] briefed a highly compartmented version of the full assessment to the President, the President-elect, and the Gang of Eight. Then-FBI Director Comey briefed Trump one-on-one on the contents of the annex. In other words, Obama asked for an update on counterintelligence agents' probe roughly five months after the FBI started its secret investigation, and McCabe reportedly requested that the dossier's information be included in the applications to monitor Page because of the president's wish for comprehensiveness. Although, as in Horowitz' report, no evidence showed Obama or other members of his administration knew the full extent of the investigation, or how it was conducted. Intelligence leaders gave both Trump and Obama a 'highly compartmented version of the full assessment' in early January, according to congressional committee's review. That document also stated the bureau's initial interest in Page was justified. Trump Made the Wiretap Claim 'on a Hunch' Shortly after Trump became aware of the FBI's investigation in spring 2017, per the Senate committee's report, he first claimed without evidence or documentation that political opponents committed a federal crime by ordering the FBI to secretly eavesdrop on the Trump campaign. The posts surprised members of the Trump team, with one aid to the president saying it was unclear to what 'wiretapping' incident he was referring, according to Reuters. The news outlet reported at the time: Under U.S. law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an 'agent of a foreign power' in order to approve a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made allegations in recent days about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign, without offering any evidence. Hours after Trump's tweets, Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis rebutted the allegations, and attempted to debunk Trump's theory. His statement read: 'A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.' Lewis was not the sole dissenting voice from Obama's team. A former senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the DOJ investigation told CNN that Trump's phones were never tapped. 'This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,' said the former official, whom the news outlet did not identify. Additionally, Ben Rhodes, Obama's former deputy national security advisor, tweeted that 'No President can order a wiretap.' Weeks after the president's tweet thread, Comey said the agency had no records to support the claim of wiretapping by the Obama administration, and the DOJ later confirmed that consensus in a court filing (an excerpt of which is below). About two years later, Trump provided insight into his rationale for authoring the posts, which alleged criminal wrongdoing against Obama. Trump said in an April 19, 2019, interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that he authored the tweets about the former president ordering agents to 'wiretap' the Trump Tower on 'a little bit of a hunch,' according to a transcript by Factba.se. Trump said: Now, [Clinton] lost, and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to - really, it's a coup. It's spying. [...] Two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom. [...] If they weren't doing anything wrong, it would have just gone by, nobody would have cared about it. It was pretty insignificant, I thought, when I said it - and that's pretty amazing. In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

In summary, while the FBI under the Obama administration launched an investigation into contacts between Trump's associates and Russian operatives before the 2016 election - an examination that included a secret mission to monitor Page, one of Trump's allies at the time - no court filings, interview transcripts or other federal records showed the former president directed agents to secretly monitor the Trump campaign. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'mostly false.'

Ryan Gosling is Sandra Bullock's son.

Contradiction

In March 2021, misleading online advertisements about a famous Hollywood actress continued to pile up. This time, an ad appeared to claim that actor Ryan Gosling was Sandra Bullock's son. Both Bullock and Gosling appeared quite young in the picture. The ad read: '[Photos] Sandra Bullock's Son Is All Grown Up & He Might Look Familiar To You.' However, this was misleading. Bullock is not Gosling's mother. There is no indication that they are related. The picture was captured at the premiere of the film 'Murder By Numbers' in April 2002. It was credited to photographer Sylvain Gaboury and FilmMagic. This was not the first time that Bullock's children had been mentioned in misleading online advertisements. For example, there was one ad that claimed: '[Photos] Sandra Bullock's Son Finally Confirms the Rumors.' The resulting story mentioned nothing of the sort. It was rated 'False.' Another one that bore similarities to the Gosling ad appeared to claim that Keanu Reeves was Bullock's son. This also had no basis in fact and received a 'False' rating. All of the ads about Bullock and her children led to seemingly endless slideshow articles. A page about her family usually appeared near the end of each story. As we reported about the Reeves ad, Bullock's son was not likely to look 'familiar' to readers. Her children were not celebrities, nor was her son 'all grown up' as the misleading ad claimed. The cover of a 2015 issue of People magazine captured Bullock with her two children. At the time, her daughter was 3 and her son was 5. EXCLUSIVE: Sandra Bullock is a mom again! Meet her adorable daughter, Laila: https://t.co/puQccyMg7g pic.twitter.com/JvrnEWb1NT - People (@people) December 2, 2015 Bullock's frequent appearances in misleading ads and disreputable political articles might remind some readers of another actor. Tom Selleck also appeared in quite a few strange ads. Some of the ads even led to a page that claimed the actor was in favor of CBD oil products. Drew Carey, Tom Hanks, Randy Jackson, and Halle Berry also appeared on the page as purported CBD oil spokespersons. There was no truth to any of it. It's possible that Bullock and Selleck were chosen to appear in so many clickbait ads for a single reason: They perhaps both fall into the category of actors who portray trustworthy, down-to-earth characters. In sum, Gosling is not Bullock's son. A misleading online advertisement sported a picture from 2002. The goal of the advertiser was likely to draw in readers with a supposedly shocking revelation, one that never came to pass. 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, Gosling is not Bullock's son. A misleading online advertisement sported a picture from 2002. The goal of the advertiser was likely to draw in readers with a supposedly shocking revelation, one that never came to pass. 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.

Redbox is hiring 'kiosk ambassadors' to man their red booths.

Contradiction

On 1 April 2016, automated DVD rental service Redbox made the following 'announcement' on its social media channels: Like movies and games? Love sitting in small, dark spaces? We've got a job for you. https://t.co/ofHiWCWpDj pic.twitter.com/6TdP5BBCuD - Redbox (@redbox) April 1, 2016 The link led to a page which was primarily visual in its gag execution, listing job requirements such as 'must be able to think inside the box,' 'not afraid of the dark,' and 'yoga experience recommended': In addition to the inclusion of a promotional coupon code for April Fools' Day rentals, Redbox labeled the joke in small print which led readers to their actual job listings page: Redbox is NOT really hiring to work inside our Redbox kiosk. However, if you are interested in working for Redbox, click here (http://www.redbox.com/careers) to search other job opportunities. Our comprehensive list of 2016's online April Fools' jokes can be viewed here.

On 1 April 2016, automated DVD rental service Redbox made the following 'announcement' on its social media channels: Like movies and games? Love sitting in small, dark spaces? We've got a job for you. https://t.co/ofHiWCWpDj pic.twitter.com/6TdP5BBCuD - Redbox (@redbox) April 1, 2016 The link led to a page which was primarily visual in its gag execution, listing job requirements such as 'must be able to think inside the box,' 'not afraid of the dark,' and 'yoga experience recommended': In addition to the inclusion of a promotional coupon code for April Fools' Day rentals, Redbox labeled the joke in small print which led readers to their actual job listings page: Redbox is NOT really hiring to work inside our Redbox kiosk. However, if you are interested in working for Redbox, click here (http://www.redbox.com/careers) to search other job opportunities. Our comprehensive list of 2016's online April Fools' jokes can be viewed here.

Redbox is hiring 'kiosk ambassadors' to man their red booths.

Contradiction

On 1 April 2016, automated DVD rental service Redbox made the following 'announcement' on its social media channels: Like movies and games? Love sitting in small, dark spaces? We've got a job for you. https://t.co/ofHiWCWpDj pic.twitter.com/6TdP5BBCuD - Redbox (@redbox) April 1, 2016 The link led to a page which was primarily visual in its gag execution, listing job requirements such as 'must be able to think inside the box,' 'not afraid of the dark,' and 'yoga experience recommended': In addition to the inclusion of a promotional coupon code for April Fools' Day rentals, Redbox labeled the joke in small print which led readers to their actual job listings page: Redbox is NOT really hiring to work inside our Redbox kiosk. However, if you are interested in working for Redbox, click here (http://www.redbox.com/careers) to search other job opportunities. Our comprehensive list of 2016's online April Fools' jokes can be viewed here.

On 1 April 2016, automated DVD rental service Redbox made the following 'announcement' on its social media channels: Like movies and games? Love sitting in small, dark spaces? We've got a job for you. https://t.co/ofHiWCWpDj pic.twitter.com/6TdP5BBCuD - Redbox (@redbox) April 1, 2016 The link led to a page which was primarily visual in its gag execution, listing job requirements such as 'must be able to think inside the box,' 'not afraid of the dark,' and 'yoga experience recommended': In addition to the inclusion of a promotional coupon code for April Fools' Day rentals, Redbox labeled the joke in small print which led readers to their actual job listings page: Redbox is NOT really hiring to work inside our Redbox kiosk. However, if you are interested in working for Redbox, click here (http://www.redbox.com/careers) to search other job opportunities. Our comprehensive list of 2016's online April Fools' jokes can be viewed here.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

People vaccinated for seasonal influenza face higher chances of catching SARS-COV-2, which causes COVID-19, or testing positive for the virus when they do not actually have it.

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. Since the early weeks of the U.S. COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak in March 2020, social media users began spreading claims that people who had gotten vaccinated to increase their immunity against seasonal influenza were at a higher risk of catching or testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The assertions took a variety of forms and resurged with new viral postings over weeks. In March and early April, many cited misinterpretations of a 2020 study by an epidemiologist with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that examined how the 2017-2018 flu season affected personnel. 'You can get coronavirus from the flu shot,' one person wrote to Snopes, referencing the DOD study (which we unpack below). Then, in late April and May, the claims shifted to focus on remarks by anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist, Dr. Rashid Buttar, who said in a video interview posted on Facebook on April 19: All the way back to 1984 all the way up to now, 2018, there are multiple studies that show that if you've had the flu shot... false positives on COVID-19 testing. After that posting, numerous Facebook accounts circulated the below-displayed meme: For the purpose of this investigation, we will first dissect what appear to be the main sources of the claim regarding flu shots - the DOD study that examined the health of military personnel (which is available via a five-page PDF) and Buttar, and then provide scientific and medical research that prove their invalidity. Greg Wolff, an epidemiologist with the U.S. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, conducted the study, examining whether the flu vaccine between October 2017 and September 2018 increased his colleagues' risk for non-flu respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus, adenovirus or human bocavirus, via a phenomenon known as virus interference. Of the roughly 9,500 DOD employees he considered for the research - most of whom were male active duty service members between 18 and 35 years old - more than two-thirds had gotten flu shots that season; however, that group did not show significant odds of catching other respiratory illnesses compared to those who were not vaccinated, according to Wolff's findings. The study states: The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. In other words, the flu shot did not change the likelihood of test subjects overall catching other respiratory illnesses; however, each non-flu respiratory virus, such as coronavirus, showed varied results for how they impacted vaccinated DOD employees. At the same time, the vaccine protected personnel against influenza, the study found. The idea of non-flu respiratory viruses showing individually different results on the test population is where anti-vaxxers focused their messaging. On April 16, 2020, more than three months after Wolff published the study, an anti-vaccine nonprofit called the Children's Health Defense highlighted the DOD research on its website, with the headline, 'Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies).' Authored by the organization's founder, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a high-profile leader of the U.S. modern anti-vaxx movement, the web page focused on one aspect of Wolff's multi-pronged study of DOD personnel: 507 test subjects who did not have the flu and were vaccinated to increase their immunity against it tested positive for 'coronavirus,' while only 170 test subjects who did not have an influenza vaccine tested positive for 'coronavirus.' The study included the following table: Wolff summarized that finding like this: Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus (which causes upper and lower respiratory disease with cold-like symptoms) in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals. But nowhere did the epidemiologist describe the type of coronavirus(es) for which his subjects tested positive, and the Children's Health Defense and other anti-vaxxers failed to make that distinction in their postings. In science, the word 'coronavirus' refers to a family of hundreds of viruses, not just one type of sickness. (Politicians and journalists frequently - and misleadingly - used the term in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the novel coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019.) Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seven types of coronaviruses cause illness in humans, some of which are fairly common and cause seasonal cold-like symptoms while others cause more severe and sometimes fatal infections, including the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The type of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease is called SARS-CoV-2, and it was yet to be discovered at the time of Wolff's study in 2017 and 2018. That means no one in the experiment was confirmed to have the virus that causes COVID-19, and Wolff did not once refer to the novel coronavirus in his research. Additionally, considering the size and makeup of Wolff's testing sample - as well as the overall findings of the study (mentioned above) and the fact that coronaviruses and influenza viruses vary by season and impact age groups differently - any assertion that the research definitely proves a connection between influenza vaccines and coronaviruses, including COVID-19, is misleading. What Does Science Say? According to the CDC, everyone 6 months and older should get an influenza vaccine each year to increase their chances of fighting the flu - even in the era of COVID-19 - though the effectiveness of the shot may vary person-to-person, year-to-year. The CDC states: Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection. In terms of whether the shot makes people more susceptible to other respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, no strong scientific or medical evidence shows that flu shots increase people's risk of catching other viruses as of this writing. One 2012 study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, which considered a test sample of 115 children and teens, suggested the flu vaccine might increase people's odds of catching non-flu viruses. But a study one year later in the same peer-reviewed journal came to the opposite conclusion. The CDC said: Many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings (in the 2012 study of children and teens) could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. ... It's not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. Who Is Dr. Rashid Buttar? Buttar, a licensed doctor of osteopathic medicine in North Carolina, is another leading source of the viral COVID-19-era claim that flu shots worsen your chances of catching the novel virus. In at least one spring 2020 video appearance (mentioned above), he claimed: 'Studies clearly show that if you've had a flu shot, you're going to test positive for COVID-19,' suggesting that the influenza vaccination contains antibodies that would make a person show a false positive on a COVID-19 test. Buttar first gained public recognition via his hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, in the late 1990s, advertising 'advanced concepts in alternative and preventative medicine.' A few years later, he and another doctor gained news coverage for enrolling patients with heart disease in a controversial study that tested chelation therapy, a treatment to remove metals from patients' bloodstream and commonly used to treat people with heavy metal poisoning. But in the late 2000s, Buttar's unconventional practices drew criticism. In 2007, the North Carolina Medical Board accused Buttar of 'unprofessional conduct for departing from prevailing medical practice by treating patients with experimental, ineffective therapies and charging 'exorbitant' fees' for unproven therapies that didn't work,' the Charlotte Observer reported. A local TV station reported: Buttar has spent years selling skin drops at $150 a bottle as a treatment for diseases ranging from autism to cancer. A panel for the North Carolina Medical Board in 2008 ruled Buttar should stop treating children or patients with cancer because 'his alternative medicine practice is below accepted medical standards in North Carolina.' But the doctor challenged that recommendation, and in 2010 the board and Buttar made a compromise: He could continue offering his treatments so long as his participants signed consent forms 'acknowledging this practice is outside the mainstream,' according to the newspaper. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) over the years has also cautioned Buttar against marketing unapproved treatments as drugs via his YouTube channel and media appearances, among other warnings. His efforts gained new popularity among online conspiracy and doomsday promoters during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Publishing weekly live-streamed videos and promoting the ideas of like-minded theorists including Judy Mikovits - a sole source for the factually challenged 'Plandemic' video that went viral in May 2020 - Buttar was among anti-vaxxers who waged misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 outbreak that challenged the news media's portrayal of the pandemic and urged suspicion among followers about nefarious practices by physicians and politicians. For example, he was among influencers who challenged in videos the CDC's call for restrictions on in-person socializing to limit the spread of COVID-19, despite scientific evidence that the virus spreads via airborne particles when an infected person's sneezes, coughs, or talks. Buttar is also among the YouTubers who have spread the false theory that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to push a mandatory vaccine, and he erroneously said online that a federal bill - H.R. 6666 - would authorize federally administered COVID-19 testing groups to enter homes and force testing against residents' will, and then 'take' those who test positive to quarantine sites. In regards to his claim that the flu shot would make people test positive for COVID-19 even if they did not have the novel virus, flu shots are made one of two ways to build people's immune systems without making them sick, according to the CDC: either from inactive flu viruses, which means they are not infectious, or a single gene from a flu virus. That means since COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, not a flu virus, it is not part of the influenza vaccine-manufacturing process at all and would not be transmitted via flu shots. In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

In sum, given that finding - as well as the false misrepresentation of the DOD study by anti-vaccine advocates - and the fact that the CDC states a 'preponderance' of scientific and medical evidence exists to suggest that the flu vaccine does not affect people's susceptibility to non-flu respiratory viruses, which in 2020 could include COVID-19, we rate this claim 'False'.

Minecraft has a newly-discovered 'sex mod' of which parents should be aware and exercise caution (or restrict the game from their children entirely).

Contradiction

On 21 October 2016 a parenting blog published an editorial penned by a guilt-ridden mother about her purported discovery of 'sex mods' for the massively popular Minecraft sandbox video game: Take a minute to Google 'Minecraft + sex mod.' I'll wait ... not only did my brain explode, but my heart did as well. Unfortunately, it was my kid who filled me in ... I suddenly found myself looking into the tearful eyes of one of my babies who was telling me that, not only was this kid playing Minecraft when she saw this, but she was also propositioned in this 'creative mode' room by another player ... This child was crushed. She opened up, and told me about the things that appear in apps. She shared a lot about how she was feeling as a result of this experience that made me want to weep and weep. The virtual world is so real to our kids. She felt like it had actually happened to her in real life. It could not be shrugged off. She actually wanted me to take away her phone, the portal to this hurt. There were many tears, half of them from me. All I could do was apologize for not protecting her better. Because the truth is, it's all my fault. I thought I was doing my due diligence in the technology department. We pay attention to how much time they spend online and limit it as well, even detoxing completely from time to time. We keep the apps they used restricted to the 10 and under age range, and Minecraft falls into this category. And still this happened. Because, sadly where the kids are, the creepers will follow. (Minecraft pun intended.) And the creepers found my baby. The post rattled off purported 'stranger danger' statistics unrelated to Minecraft or 'sex mods' and advised parents to take the standard steps of 'locking down' and/or monitoring their children's Internet time. (Tips of that sort are standard advice given to parents about Internet safety and have nothing to do with Minecraft specifically.) The mother in question stated she 'did a little research,' but that research didn't pertain to the existence of Minecraft sex mods. The popular parenting blog Scary Mommy tackled the topic on 24 October 2016, also presenting information largely unrelated to the functions of Minecraft: After I dropped my kids off at school, I took a deep breath and googled 'minecraft sex mods.' And fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. A ton of hits come up, mostly YouTube videos. Apparently, in the app version of the game, there is a way to 'craft' such cringe-worthy things as pixelated characters getting it on with each other. I could only bring myself to watch a few of the videos. (OK, just one.) I couldn't get past the 'gangsta' Minecraft dude banging a bikini-clad chick in the back room of a Minecraft whorehouse. (Yes, really.) I'll spare you the rest because I'm a decent human being. At first, I was just happy that my 9-year-old, a Minecraft aficionado for many years, doesn't use the app version of the game. But then I realized, duh, the kid spends a million hours watching Minecraft YouTube videos. The Scary Mommy writer similarly reported that she engaged in some 'research,' which appeared to consist of viewing YouTube videos about (but not hosted by or affiliated with Minecraft). The writer was appalled that some of the videos were not age-protected, although since those videos are not official Minecraft media, responsibility for their policing rests with YouTube. Few things in 2016 have captivated children like Minecraft (software lauded for its ability to operate as a covert educational platform), and few things have terrified parents more than 'sex perverts on the Internet.' Moreover, Minecraft's popularity with children is often matched only by their parents' lack of understanding of the game. The confluence of these circumstances means that if a Minecraft rumor about sexual predators were to spread unchecked, children could be deprived of one of the most enjoyable learning experiences available to them. Neither of the articles referenced above explained what a Minecraft 'sex mod' might be, nor how the process of modifying Minecraft works. We contacted both Minecraft maker Mojang as well as Bec Oakley, the owner of a popular Minecraft web guide for parents called MineMum. Mojang did not respond to our inquiry, but Oakley was aware of the viral rumors and explained how mods work for Minecraft players: Here's the deal. Mods are bits of unofficial modified game code that users can create that add items to the game or change the things that a player can do. They are then made available for anyone to download in user forums and gamer websites. They're not an official part of the game, are not supported by Mojang (the makers of Minecraft), don't come packaged with the game and must be added voluntarily and manually. There are thousands and thousands of these mods around, most of which are not inappropriate. But given that it is user-generated content that is not under any kind of controls or censorship, there are inappropriate mods available (there are also other types of modified content like skins and texture packs). These have been in existence for a long time, and probably since Minecraft was first released years ago. On YouTube there are thousands of videos of players playing modded games of Minecraft, and some of these involve players playing with a sex mod applied to the game. Usually these videos are age restricted but there are ones that slip through the YouTube age protection cracks. There is no sex level in the official game of Minecraft. There is no sexual content in the official game of Minecraft. Mods are not supported or endorsed by Mojang. Mods cannot be added to the game automatically. There are mods that contain content considered inappropriate for children. Mods can be downloaded and applied to the game by any player who has access to the internet and knows how to google for 'minecraft mods'. There are no ratings or censorship controls for mods. There are YouTube videos of users playing Minecraft with inappropriate mods. We asked Oakley whether it was possible for players to encounter Minecraft sex mods without having gone through the lengthy process of specifically installing those mods themselves. Surmising that YouTube videos (not Minecraft content) was responsible for web-wide parental alarm, she responded: No you can't encounter a sex mod in the game (or any mod) without having installed it. Kids aren't going to accidentally come across this mod without someone having installed it - either in their own game or on a multiplayer server that they're playing on. You can encounter YouTube videos of people playing with sex mods installed, I think that's a large part of where parents are freaking out. In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

Minecraft has a newly-discovered 'sex mod' of which parents should be aware and exercise caution (or restrict the game from their children entirely).

Contradiction

On 21 October 2016 a parenting blog published an editorial penned by a guilt-ridden mother about her purported discovery of 'sex mods' for the massively popular Minecraft sandbox video game: Take a minute to Google 'Minecraft + sex mod.' I'll wait ... not only did my brain explode, but my heart did as well. Unfortunately, it was my kid who filled me in ... I suddenly found myself looking into the tearful eyes of one of my babies who was telling me that, not only was this kid playing Minecraft when she saw this, but she was also propositioned in this 'creative mode' room by another player ... This child was crushed. She opened up, and told me about the things that appear in apps. She shared a lot about how she was feeling as a result of this experience that made me want to weep and weep. The virtual world is so real to our kids. She felt like it had actually happened to her in real life. It could not be shrugged off. She actually wanted me to take away her phone, the portal to this hurt. There were many tears, half of them from me. All I could do was apologize for not protecting her better. Because the truth is, it's all my fault. I thought I was doing my due diligence in the technology department. We pay attention to how much time they spend online and limit it as well, even detoxing completely from time to time. We keep the apps they used restricted to the 10 and under age range, and Minecraft falls into this category. And still this happened. Because, sadly where the kids are, the creepers will follow. (Minecraft pun intended.) And the creepers found my baby. The post rattled off purported 'stranger danger' statistics unrelated to Minecraft or 'sex mods' and advised parents to take the standard steps of 'locking down' and/or monitoring their children's Internet time. (Tips of that sort are standard advice given to parents about Internet safety and have nothing to do with Minecraft specifically.) The mother in question stated she 'did a little research,' but that research didn't pertain to the existence of Minecraft sex mods. The popular parenting blog Scary Mommy tackled the topic on 24 October 2016, also presenting information largely unrelated to the functions of Minecraft: After I dropped my kids off at school, I took a deep breath and googled 'minecraft sex mods.' And fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. A ton of hits come up, mostly YouTube videos. Apparently, in the app version of the game, there is a way to 'craft' such cringe-worthy things as pixelated characters getting it on with each other. I could only bring myself to watch a few of the videos. (OK, just one.) I couldn't get past the 'gangsta' Minecraft dude banging a bikini-clad chick in the back room of a Minecraft whorehouse. (Yes, really.) I'll spare you the rest because I'm a decent human being. At first, I was just happy that my 9-year-old, a Minecraft aficionado for many years, doesn't use the app version of the game. But then I realized, duh, the kid spends a million hours watching Minecraft YouTube videos. The Scary Mommy writer similarly reported that she engaged in some 'research,' which appeared to consist of viewing YouTube videos about (but not hosted by or affiliated with Minecraft). The writer was appalled that some of the videos were not age-protected, although since those videos are not official Minecraft media, responsibility for their policing rests with YouTube. Few things in 2016 have captivated children like Minecraft (software lauded for its ability to operate as a covert educational platform), and few things have terrified parents more than 'sex perverts on the Internet.' Moreover, Minecraft's popularity with children is often matched only by their parents' lack of understanding of the game. The confluence of these circumstances means that if a Minecraft rumor about sexual predators were to spread unchecked, children could be deprived of one of the most enjoyable learning experiences available to them. Neither of the articles referenced above explained what a Minecraft 'sex mod' might be, nor how the process of modifying Minecraft works. We contacted both Minecraft maker Mojang as well as Bec Oakley, the owner of a popular Minecraft web guide for parents called MineMum. Mojang did not respond to our inquiry, but Oakley was aware of the viral rumors and explained how mods work for Minecraft players: Here's the deal. Mods are bits of unofficial modified game code that users can create that add items to the game or change the things that a player can do. They are then made available for anyone to download in user forums and gamer websites. They're not an official part of the game, are not supported by Mojang (the makers of Minecraft), don't come packaged with the game and must be added voluntarily and manually. There are thousands and thousands of these mods around, most of which are not inappropriate. But given that it is user-generated content that is not under any kind of controls or censorship, there are inappropriate mods available (there are also other types of modified content like skins and texture packs). These have been in existence for a long time, and probably since Minecraft was first released years ago. On YouTube there are thousands of videos of players playing modded games of Minecraft, and some of these involve players playing with a sex mod applied to the game. Usually these videos are age restricted but there are ones that slip through the YouTube age protection cracks. There is no sex level in the official game of Minecraft. There is no sexual content in the official game of Minecraft. Mods are not supported or endorsed by Mojang. Mods cannot be added to the game automatically. There are mods that contain content considered inappropriate for children. Mods can be downloaded and applied to the game by any player who has access to the internet and knows how to google for 'minecraft mods'. There are no ratings or censorship controls for mods. There are YouTube videos of users playing Minecraft with inappropriate mods. We asked Oakley whether it was possible for players to encounter Minecraft sex mods without having gone through the lengthy process of specifically installing those mods themselves. Surmising that YouTube videos (not Minecraft content) was responsible for web-wide parental alarm, she responded: No you can't encounter a sex mod in the game (or any mod) without having installed it. Kids aren't going to accidentally come across this mod without someone having installed it - either in their own game or on a multiplayer server that they're playing on. You can encounter YouTube videos of people playing with sex mods installed, I think that's a large part of where parents are freaking out. In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

Minecraft has a newly-discovered 'sex mod' of which parents should be aware and exercise caution (or restrict the game from their children entirely).

Contradiction

On 21 October 2016 a parenting blog published an editorial penned by a guilt-ridden mother about her purported discovery of 'sex mods' for the massively popular Minecraft sandbox video game: Take a minute to Google 'Minecraft + sex mod.' I'll wait ... not only did my brain explode, but my heart did as well. Unfortunately, it was my kid who filled me in ... I suddenly found myself looking into the tearful eyes of one of my babies who was telling me that, not only was this kid playing Minecraft when she saw this, but she was also propositioned in this 'creative mode' room by another player ... This child was crushed. She opened up, and told me about the things that appear in apps. She shared a lot about how she was feeling as a result of this experience that made me want to weep and weep. The virtual world is so real to our kids. She felt like it had actually happened to her in real life. It could not be shrugged off. She actually wanted me to take away her phone, the portal to this hurt. There were many tears, half of them from me. All I could do was apologize for not protecting her better. Because the truth is, it's all my fault. I thought I was doing my due diligence in the technology department. We pay attention to how much time they spend online and limit it as well, even detoxing completely from time to time. We keep the apps they used restricted to the 10 and under age range, and Minecraft falls into this category. And still this happened. Because, sadly where the kids are, the creepers will follow. (Minecraft pun intended.) And the creepers found my baby. The post rattled off purported 'stranger danger' statistics unrelated to Minecraft or 'sex mods' and advised parents to take the standard steps of 'locking down' and/or monitoring their children's Internet time. (Tips of that sort are standard advice given to parents about Internet safety and have nothing to do with Minecraft specifically.) The mother in question stated she 'did a little research,' but that research didn't pertain to the existence of Minecraft sex mods. The popular parenting blog Scary Mommy tackled the topic on 24 October 2016, also presenting information largely unrelated to the functions of Minecraft: After I dropped my kids off at school, I took a deep breath and googled 'minecraft sex mods.' And fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. A ton of hits come up, mostly YouTube videos. Apparently, in the app version of the game, there is a way to 'craft' such cringe-worthy things as pixelated characters getting it on with each other. I could only bring myself to watch a few of the videos. (OK, just one.) I couldn't get past the 'gangsta' Minecraft dude banging a bikini-clad chick in the back room of a Minecraft whorehouse. (Yes, really.) I'll spare you the rest because I'm a decent human being. At first, I was just happy that my 9-year-old, a Minecraft aficionado for many years, doesn't use the app version of the game. But then I realized, duh, the kid spends a million hours watching Minecraft YouTube videos. The Scary Mommy writer similarly reported that she engaged in some 'research,' which appeared to consist of viewing YouTube videos about (but not hosted by or affiliated with Minecraft). The writer was appalled that some of the videos were not age-protected, although since those videos are not official Minecraft media, responsibility for their policing rests with YouTube. Few things in 2016 have captivated children like Minecraft (software lauded for its ability to operate as a covert educational platform), and few things have terrified parents more than 'sex perverts on the Internet.' Moreover, Minecraft's popularity with children is often matched only by their parents' lack of understanding of the game. The confluence of these circumstances means that if a Minecraft rumor about sexual predators were to spread unchecked, children could be deprived of one of the most enjoyable learning experiences available to them. Neither of the articles referenced above explained what a Minecraft 'sex mod' might be, nor how the process of modifying Minecraft works. We contacted both Minecraft maker Mojang as well as Bec Oakley, the owner of a popular Minecraft web guide for parents called MineMum. Mojang did not respond to our inquiry, but Oakley was aware of the viral rumors and explained how mods work for Minecraft players: Here's the deal. Mods are bits of unofficial modified game code that users can create that add items to the game or change the things that a player can do. They are then made available for anyone to download in user forums and gamer websites. They're not an official part of the game, are not supported by Mojang (the makers of Minecraft), don't come packaged with the game and must be added voluntarily and manually. There are thousands and thousands of these mods around, most of which are not inappropriate. But given that it is user-generated content that is not under any kind of controls or censorship, there are inappropriate mods available (there are also other types of modified content like skins and texture packs). These have been in existence for a long time, and probably since Minecraft was first released years ago. On YouTube there are thousands of videos of players playing modded games of Minecraft, and some of these involve players playing with a sex mod applied to the game. Usually these videos are age restricted but there are ones that slip through the YouTube age protection cracks. There is no sex level in the official game of Minecraft. There is no sexual content in the official game of Minecraft. Mods are not supported or endorsed by Mojang. Mods cannot be added to the game automatically. There are mods that contain content considered inappropriate for children. Mods can be downloaded and applied to the game by any player who has access to the internet and knows how to google for 'minecraft mods'. There are no ratings or censorship controls for mods. There are YouTube videos of users playing Minecraft with inappropriate mods. We asked Oakley whether it was possible for players to encounter Minecraft sex mods without having gone through the lengthy process of specifically installing those mods themselves. Surmising that YouTube videos (not Minecraft content) was responsible for web-wide parental alarm, she responded: No you can't encounter a sex mod in the game (or any mod) without having installed it. Kids aren't going to accidentally come across this mod without someone having installed it - either in their own game or on a multiplayer server that they're playing on. You can encounter YouTube videos of people playing with sex mods installed, I think that's a large part of where parents are freaking out. In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

Minecraft has a newly-discovered 'sex mod' of which parents should be aware and exercise caution (or restrict the game from their children entirely).

Contradiction

On 21 October 2016 a parenting blog published an editorial penned by a guilt-ridden mother about her purported discovery of 'sex mods' for the massively popular Minecraft sandbox video game: Take a minute to Google 'Minecraft + sex mod.' I'll wait ... not only did my brain explode, but my heart did as well. Unfortunately, it was my kid who filled me in ... I suddenly found myself looking into the tearful eyes of one of my babies who was telling me that, not only was this kid playing Minecraft when she saw this, but she was also propositioned in this 'creative mode' room by another player ... This child was crushed. She opened up, and told me about the things that appear in apps. She shared a lot about how she was feeling as a result of this experience that made me want to weep and weep. The virtual world is so real to our kids. She felt like it had actually happened to her in real life. It could not be shrugged off. She actually wanted me to take away her phone, the portal to this hurt. There were many tears, half of them from me. All I could do was apologize for not protecting her better. Because the truth is, it's all my fault. I thought I was doing my due diligence in the technology department. We pay attention to how much time they spend online and limit it as well, even detoxing completely from time to time. We keep the apps they used restricted to the 10 and under age range, and Minecraft falls into this category. And still this happened. Because, sadly where the kids are, the creepers will follow. (Minecraft pun intended.) And the creepers found my baby. The post rattled off purported 'stranger danger' statistics unrelated to Minecraft or 'sex mods' and advised parents to take the standard steps of 'locking down' and/or monitoring their children's Internet time. (Tips of that sort are standard advice given to parents about Internet safety and have nothing to do with Minecraft specifically.) The mother in question stated she 'did a little research,' but that research didn't pertain to the existence of Minecraft sex mods. The popular parenting blog Scary Mommy tackled the topic on 24 October 2016, also presenting information largely unrelated to the functions of Minecraft: After I dropped my kids off at school, I took a deep breath and googled 'minecraft sex mods.' And fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. A ton of hits come up, mostly YouTube videos. Apparently, in the app version of the game, there is a way to 'craft' such cringe-worthy things as pixelated characters getting it on with each other. I could only bring myself to watch a few of the videos. (OK, just one.) I couldn't get past the 'gangsta' Minecraft dude banging a bikini-clad chick in the back room of a Minecraft whorehouse. (Yes, really.) I'll spare you the rest because I'm a decent human being. At first, I was just happy that my 9-year-old, a Minecraft aficionado for many years, doesn't use the app version of the game. But then I realized, duh, the kid spends a million hours watching Minecraft YouTube videos. The Scary Mommy writer similarly reported that she engaged in some 'research,' which appeared to consist of viewing YouTube videos about (but not hosted by or affiliated with Minecraft). The writer was appalled that some of the videos were not age-protected, although since those videos are not official Minecraft media, responsibility for their policing rests with YouTube. Few things in 2016 have captivated children like Minecraft (software lauded for its ability to operate as a covert educational platform), and few things have terrified parents more than 'sex perverts on the Internet.' Moreover, Minecraft's popularity with children is often matched only by their parents' lack of understanding of the game. The confluence of these circumstances means that if a Minecraft rumor about sexual predators were to spread unchecked, children could be deprived of one of the most enjoyable learning experiences available to them. Neither of the articles referenced above explained what a Minecraft 'sex mod' might be, nor how the process of modifying Minecraft works. We contacted both Minecraft maker Mojang as well as Bec Oakley, the owner of a popular Minecraft web guide for parents called MineMum. Mojang did not respond to our inquiry, but Oakley was aware of the viral rumors and explained how mods work for Minecraft players: Here's the deal. Mods are bits of unofficial modified game code that users can create that add items to the game or change the things that a player can do. They are then made available for anyone to download in user forums and gamer websites. They're not an official part of the game, are not supported by Mojang (the makers of Minecraft), don't come packaged with the game and must be added voluntarily and manually. There are thousands and thousands of these mods around, most of which are not inappropriate. But given that it is user-generated content that is not under any kind of controls or censorship, there are inappropriate mods available (there are also other types of modified content like skins and texture packs). These have been in existence for a long time, and probably since Minecraft was first released years ago. On YouTube there are thousands of videos of players playing modded games of Minecraft, and some of these involve players playing with a sex mod applied to the game. Usually these videos are age restricted but there are ones that slip through the YouTube age protection cracks. There is no sex level in the official game of Minecraft. There is no sexual content in the official game of Minecraft. Mods are not supported or endorsed by Mojang. Mods cannot be added to the game automatically. There are mods that contain content considered inappropriate for children. Mods can be downloaded and applied to the game by any player who has access to the internet and knows how to google for 'minecraft mods'. There are no ratings or censorship controls for mods. There are YouTube videos of users playing Minecraft with inappropriate mods. We asked Oakley whether it was possible for players to encounter Minecraft sex mods without having gone through the lengthy process of specifically installing those mods themselves. Surmising that YouTube videos (not Minecraft content) was responsible for web-wide parental alarm, she responded: No you can't encounter a sex mod in the game (or any mod) without having installed it. Kids aren't going to accidentally come across this mod without someone having installed it - either in their own game or on a multiplayer server that they're playing on. You can encounter YouTube videos of people playing with sex mods installed, I think that's a large part of where parents are freaking out. In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

In short, the Minecraft 'sex mod' frenzy is likely borne of a combination of fears about Internet predators, ignorance of the manner in which Minecraft works, and the universal popularity of articles warning that a common and popular children's pastime harbors a hidden danger. There are no 'sex mods' or 'sex levels' in the official Minecraft game, and such mods can only be accessed after an intentional installation of them or on a multiplayer server. The majority of Minecraft mods are non-sexual in nature, and parents concerned about their children being exposed to 'sex mods' are likely better served by restricting their YouTube access than by taking the game away from them.

The White House Gift Shop is selling coronavirus commemorative coins.

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 late April 2020, some social media users accused the White House of attempting to capitalize on the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic by selling commemorative coins through the 'White House Gift Shop': The U.S. government is not selling coronavirus commemorative coins via the White House Gift Shop. The LGBTQ Nation article mentioned in the above-displayed tweet is referring to the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com. Although this website is selling coronavirus commemorative coins, and it does call itself the 'White House Gift Shop,' it is not officially affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. government, or the White House. The LGBTQ Nation article acknowledges this in its closing paragraphs: The White House Gift Shop is a controversial business that is only tangentially related to the actual White House. At one point it was affiliated with the Secret Service, but the trademark is held by a private individual, Anthony Giannini. Giannini describes himself as non-partisan, but admits he is a Trump supporter. When we reached out to Anthony Giannini, the owner of WhiteHouseGiftShop.com, he confirmed to us that the 'White House is not selling coronavirus coins' and that the White House Gift Shop 'is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations.' WhiteHouseGiftShop.com has a long and convoluted history that can reportedly be traced back to the Truman administration in the 1940s. Giannini told us that this gift shop program has gone through several iterations over the years and over time has become further removed from the U.S. government. In 2012, Giannini says, ownership of the White House Gift Shop was officially transferred to his corporation and in 2016 he was awarded a trademark for the White House Gift Shop name. While the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com may trace its history back to the 1940s, and while this organization may have been at one time affiliated with the U.S. government, as of this writing in 2020, the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is a privately run website with no official connections to the White House. Giannini said: In 2012, USSS (United States Secret Service) agents and officers were no longer able to volunteer to staff The White House Gift Shop, the 'only original official' White House Gift Shop in U.S. history. It was at this time that USSS/UDBF granted control and ultimately of WHGS to one of my own corporations consistent with all the normal transfer of rights and provenance. One logical reason for this transition was my historical role as the principal benefactor for many years to the USSS Uniformed Division Fund and the 24/7 days and nights I gave to assuring the preservation of this unique entity. From 2012 to 2016, we began the long journey of securing U.S. trademarks, primary, exclusive, to the use of the name the White House Gift Shop. Yes, we had to prove our historical relationship to the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We accomplished this during the administration of President Barack Obama whose administration was gracious to WHGS. In 2016, we were granted primary, exclusive trademarks to the name the White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946 and the White House Gift Shop. The granting of trademark rights was based on the historical connection to The White House. For the first time in history, a private entity received trademark protections based on its association with The White House, as stated by some not so friendly writers relative to WHGS, writers, however, who never bothered to contact me. So, here we are, presently, operating WHGS without a break in service from its inception in 1946, its online presence in 1998, and for me, thru three administrations now, precedent, as it were. I have personally created gifts for former presidents both Democrat and Republican. It should also be noted that all of the proceeds from these coronavirus commemorative coins, according to Giannini, will be donated to COVID-19 research hospitals and the NYPD. Giannini told us that he created the 'World Vs Virus' COVID-19 commemorative coins to raise money for John Hopkins Hospital where his wife, Helen, is being treated for leukemia. Giannini wrote: Two months ago, we realized she would be fighting for her life with blood cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.... It is for the above reasons that I was moved to create the COVID-19 memorial coin, WORLD vs VIRUS - with every penny of proceeds donated to Johns Hopkins, two other medical research centers, and some donations to LE first responders. [...] The coin is now nearly sold-out. When accounts settle in May, we will donate $100,000.00 of which Johns Hopkins Medical Center will be a principal recipient. I have watched her medical team, led by pioneer bone marrow transplant expert, Dr. Richard J. Jones, MD, Director of Bone Marrow Transplant at Kimmel Cancer Center - protect her as soldiers protect civilians, in her case, from the onslaught of COVID-19 and the worst possible blood cancer that strikes tens of thousands of children even more than adults. I pray the coin sells-out tonight to get these funds to America's real heroes. In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

The White House Gift Shop is selling coronavirus commemorative coins.

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 late April 2020, some social media users accused the White House of attempting to capitalize on the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic by selling commemorative coins through the 'White House Gift Shop': The U.S. government is not selling coronavirus commemorative coins via the White House Gift Shop. The LGBTQ Nation article mentioned in the above-displayed tweet is referring to the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com. Although this website is selling coronavirus commemorative coins, and it does call itself the 'White House Gift Shop,' it is not officially affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. government, or the White House. The LGBTQ Nation article acknowledges this in its closing paragraphs: The White House Gift Shop is a controversial business that is only tangentially related to the actual White House. At one point it was affiliated with the Secret Service, but the trademark is held by a private individual, Anthony Giannini. Giannini describes himself as non-partisan, but admits he is a Trump supporter. When we reached out to Anthony Giannini, the owner of WhiteHouseGiftShop.com, he confirmed to us that the 'White House is not selling coronavirus coins' and that the White House Gift Shop 'is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations.' WhiteHouseGiftShop.com has a long and convoluted history that can reportedly be traced back to the Truman administration in the 1940s. Giannini told us that this gift shop program has gone through several iterations over the years and over time has become further removed from the U.S. government. In 2012, Giannini says, ownership of the White House Gift Shop was officially transferred to his corporation and in 2016 he was awarded a trademark for the White House Gift Shop name. While the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com may trace its history back to the 1940s, and while this organization may have been at one time affiliated with the U.S. government, as of this writing in 2020, the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is a privately run website with no official connections to the White House. Giannini said: In 2012, USSS (United States Secret Service) agents and officers were no longer able to volunteer to staff The White House Gift Shop, the 'only original official' White House Gift Shop in U.S. history. It was at this time that USSS/UDBF granted control and ultimately of WHGS to one of my own corporations consistent with all the normal transfer of rights and provenance. One logical reason for this transition was my historical role as the principal benefactor for many years to the USSS Uniformed Division Fund and the 24/7 days and nights I gave to assuring the preservation of this unique entity. From 2012 to 2016, we began the long journey of securing U.S. trademarks, primary, exclusive, to the use of the name the White House Gift Shop. Yes, we had to prove our historical relationship to the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We accomplished this during the administration of President Barack Obama whose administration was gracious to WHGS. In 2016, we were granted primary, exclusive trademarks to the name the White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946 and the White House Gift Shop. The granting of trademark rights was based on the historical connection to The White House. For the first time in history, a private entity received trademark protections based on its association with The White House, as stated by some not so friendly writers relative to WHGS, writers, however, who never bothered to contact me. So, here we are, presently, operating WHGS without a break in service from its inception in 1946, its online presence in 1998, and for me, thru three administrations now, precedent, as it were. I have personally created gifts for former presidents both Democrat and Republican. It should also be noted that all of the proceeds from these coronavirus commemorative coins, according to Giannini, will be donated to COVID-19 research hospitals and the NYPD. Giannini told us that he created the 'World Vs Virus' COVID-19 commemorative coins to raise money for John Hopkins Hospital where his wife, Helen, is being treated for leukemia. Giannini wrote: Two months ago, we realized she would be fighting for her life with blood cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.... It is for the above reasons that I was moved to create the COVID-19 memorial coin, WORLD vs VIRUS - with every penny of proceeds donated to Johns Hopkins, two other medical research centers, and some donations to LE first responders. [...] The coin is now nearly sold-out. When accounts settle in May, we will donate $100,000.00 of which Johns Hopkins Medical Center will be a principal recipient. I have watched her medical team, led by pioneer bone marrow transplant expert, Dr. Richard J. Jones, MD, Director of Bone Marrow Transplant at Kimmel Cancer Center - protect her as soldiers protect civilians, in her case, from the onslaught of COVID-19 and the worst possible blood cancer that strikes tens of thousands of children even more than adults. I pray the coin sells-out tonight to get these funds to America's real heroes. In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

The White House Gift Shop is selling coronavirus commemorative coins.

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 late April 2020, some social media users accused the White House of attempting to capitalize on the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic by selling commemorative coins through the 'White House Gift Shop': The U.S. government is not selling coronavirus commemorative coins via the White House Gift Shop. The LGBTQ Nation article mentioned in the above-displayed tweet is referring to the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com. Although this website is selling coronavirus commemorative coins, and it does call itself the 'White House Gift Shop,' it is not officially affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. government, or the White House. The LGBTQ Nation article acknowledges this in its closing paragraphs: The White House Gift Shop is a controversial business that is only tangentially related to the actual White House. At one point it was affiliated with the Secret Service, but the trademark is held by a private individual, Anthony Giannini. Giannini describes himself as non-partisan, but admits he is a Trump supporter. When we reached out to Anthony Giannini, the owner of WhiteHouseGiftShop.com, he confirmed to us that the 'White House is not selling coronavirus coins' and that the White House Gift Shop 'is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations.' WhiteHouseGiftShop.com has a long and convoluted history that can reportedly be traced back to the Truman administration in the 1940s. Giannini told us that this gift shop program has gone through several iterations over the years and over time has become further removed from the U.S. government. In 2012, Giannini says, ownership of the White House Gift Shop was officially transferred to his corporation and in 2016 he was awarded a trademark for the White House Gift Shop name. While the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com may trace its history back to the 1940s, and while this organization may have been at one time affiliated with the U.S. government, as of this writing in 2020, the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is a privately run website with no official connections to the White House. Giannini said: In 2012, USSS (United States Secret Service) agents and officers were no longer able to volunteer to staff The White House Gift Shop, the 'only original official' White House Gift Shop in U.S. history. It was at this time that USSS/UDBF granted control and ultimately of WHGS to one of my own corporations consistent with all the normal transfer of rights and provenance. One logical reason for this transition was my historical role as the principal benefactor for many years to the USSS Uniformed Division Fund and the 24/7 days and nights I gave to assuring the preservation of this unique entity. From 2012 to 2016, we began the long journey of securing U.S. trademarks, primary, exclusive, to the use of the name the White House Gift Shop. Yes, we had to prove our historical relationship to the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We accomplished this during the administration of President Barack Obama whose administration was gracious to WHGS. In 2016, we were granted primary, exclusive trademarks to the name the White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946 and the White House Gift Shop. The granting of trademark rights was based on the historical connection to The White House. For the first time in history, a private entity received trademark protections based on its association with The White House, as stated by some not so friendly writers relative to WHGS, writers, however, who never bothered to contact me. So, here we are, presently, operating WHGS without a break in service from its inception in 1946, its online presence in 1998, and for me, thru three administrations now, precedent, as it were. I have personally created gifts for former presidents both Democrat and Republican. It should also be noted that all of the proceeds from these coronavirus commemorative coins, according to Giannini, will be donated to COVID-19 research hospitals and the NYPD. Giannini told us that he created the 'World Vs Virus' COVID-19 commemorative coins to raise money for John Hopkins Hospital where his wife, Helen, is being treated for leukemia. Giannini wrote: Two months ago, we realized she would be fighting for her life with blood cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.... It is for the above reasons that I was moved to create the COVID-19 memorial coin, WORLD vs VIRUS - with every penny of proceeds donated to Johns Hopkins, two other medical research centers, and some donations to LE first responders. [...] The coin is now nearly sold-out. When accounts settle in May, we will donate $100,000.00 of which Johns Hopkins Medical Center will be a principal recipient. I have watched her medical team, led by pioneer bone marrow transplant expert, Dr. Richard J. Jones, MD, Director of Bone Marrow Transplant at Kimmel Cancer Center - protect her as soldiers protect civilians, in her case, from the onslaught of COVID-19 and the worst possible blood cancer that strikes tens of thousands of children even more than adults. I pray the coin sells-out tonight to get these funds to America's real heroes. In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House. Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to 'commemorate' the COVID-19 pandemic.

The medical term 'vagina' has been replaced with the phrase 'front hole.

Contradiction

A LGBTQIA safe sex guide published by Healthline, a California health information provider, stirred up controversy in August 2018 when a number of conservative web sites took issue with Healthline's use of the term 'front hole' to describe the genitalia of some transgender individuals. Those web sites presented Healthine's LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide as if that organization had entirely replaced the term 'vagina' with the term 'front hole.' The Daily Caller, for example, employed the inaccurate and misleading headline 'San Fran Health Org Gets Rid of 'Vagina' in Favor of 'More Inclusive Front Hole.'' NewsPressed filed a similar report incorrectly stating that 'Gender Fluid Nutcases' were 'demanding' that the vagina be called 'front hole.' The Global Dispatch also wrongly asserted that 'QUILT BAG' (a derogatory term for the LGBTQIA community) activists had won, as Healthline 'rename(d) vagina as 'front hole'' [to] appease transgender men': None of these headlines accurately reflected how the terms 'front hole' and 'vagina' were used in Healthline's safe sex guide, and they left readers with the false impression that the word 'vagina' was being replaced throughout the guide - and perhaps among the larger medical community - in favor of 'front hole.' That wasn't the case. Many of the web sites that took issue with the use of the term 'front hole' pointed to a section in Healthline's safe sex guide about gender-inclusive language: For the purposes of this guide, we'll refer to the vagina as the 'front hole' instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina.' This is gender-inclusive language that's considerate of the fact that some trans people don't identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals. Although this passage, presented in isolation, may have fostered the impression that Healthline was 'replacing' the word 'vagina' with 'front hole,' that wasn't what the organization wrote. Healthline stated that instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina,' they would also employ the term 'front hole.' The truth of that latter statement is evidenced by the fact that the word 'vagina' appeared in the Healthline document 17 times (while 'front hole' was used 16 times). Still, Healthline decided that their original explanation was poorly worded and eventually edited the section to better explicate when and why they used the term 'front hole': For the purposes of this guide, we've chosen to include alternative words for readers to use for their genitals. For example, some trans men choose to use the words 'front hole' or 'internal genital' instead of 'vagina.' Alternatively, some trans women may say 'strapless' or 'girl dick' for penis. This usage is meant for one-on-one communication with trusted persons, such as your doctor or partner, not for broad discussion. In this guide, whenever we use the medical term 'vagina,' we'll also include 'front hole' as clinically recommended by researchers in the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal. Both an archived version of the Healthline guide (captured before the above passage was edited) and the version available at the time of this writing included repeated use of the word 'vagina.' Clearly then, Healthline did not 'get rid of' or 'replace' that word in favor or some other terminology. In addition to clarifying their explanation, Healthline also published an article titled 'We're Not Renaming the Vagina' in response to the controversy that noted the additional usage of 'front whole' by other health organizations and publications as well: Some people are under the impression that Healthline is now using the term 'front hole' instead of vagina. This is simply not true. As one of the world's leading health websites, we place a huge emphasis on standards of accuracy, integrity, and balance. Every article we publish undergoes a rigorous editorial process and extensive medical review. In the LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide, we use both front hole and vagina. 'Front hole' is one of the numerous, accepted terms for genitalia we use specifically for certain members of the trans community who identify with it. In no instance in this guide are we saying we want to replace the word vagina. 'Front hole,' as another term for vagina, is also used by the National Institutes of Health, Human Rights Campaign, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal, and Fenway Health in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, the National LGBT Health Education Center, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

The medical term 'vagina' has been replaced with the phrase 'front hole.

Contradiction

A LGBTQIA safe sex guide published by Healthline, a California health information provider, stirred up controversy in August 2018 when a number of conservative web sites took issue with Healthline's use of the term 'front hole' to describe the genitalia of some transgender individuals. Those web sites presented Healthine's LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide as if that organization had entirely replaced the term 'vagina' with the term 'front hole.' The Daily Caller, for example, employed the inaccurate and misleading headline 'San Fran Health Org Gets Rid of 'Vagina' in Favor of 'More Inclusive Front Hole.'' NewsPressed filed a similar report incorrectly stating that 'Gender Fluid Nutcases' were 'demanding' that the vagina be called 'front hole.' The Global Dispatch also wrongly asserted that 'QUILT BAG' (a derogatory term for the LGBTQIA community) activists had won, as Healthline 'rename(d) vagina as 'front hole'' [to] appease transgender men': None of these headlines accurately reflected how the terms 'front hole' and 'vagina' were used in Healthline's safe sex guide, and they left readers with the false impression that the word 'vagina' was being replaced throughout the guide - and perhaps among the larger medical community - in favor of 'front hole.' That wasn't the case. Many of the web sites that took issue with the use of the term 'front hole' pointed to a section in Healthline's safe sex guide about gender-inclusive language: For the purposes of this guide, we'll refer to the vagina as the 'front hole' instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina.' This is gender-inclusive language that's considerate of the fact that some trans people don't identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals. Although this passage, presented in isolation, may have fostered the impression that Healthline was 'replacing' the word 'vagina' with 'front hole,' that wasn't what the organization wrote. Healthline stated that instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina,' they would also employ the term 'front hole.' The truth of that latter statement is evidenced by the fact that the word 'vagina' appeared in the Healthline document 17 times (while 'front hole' was used 16 times). Still, Healthline decided that their original explanation was poorly worded and eventually edited the section to better explicate when and why they used the term 'front hole': For the purposes of this guide, we've chosen to include alternative words for readers to use for their genitals. For example, some trans men choose to use the words 'front hole' or 'internal genital' instead of 'vagina.' Alternatively, some trans women may say 'strapless' or 'girl dick' for penis. This usage is meant for one-on-one communication with trusted persons, such as your doctor or partner, not for broad discussion. In this guide, whenever we use the medical term 'vagina,' we'll also include 'front hole' as clinically recommended by researchers in the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal. Both an archived version of the Healthline guide (captured before the above passage was edited) and the version available at the time of this writing included repeated use of the word 'vagina.' Clearly then, Healthline did not 'get rid of' or 'replace' that word in favor or some other terminology. In addition to clarifying their explanation, Healthline also published an article titled 'We're Not Renaming the Vagina' in response to the controversy that noted the additional usage of 'front whole' by other health organizations and publications as well: Some people are under the impression that Healthline is now using the term 'front hole' instead of vagina. This is simply not true. As one of the world's leading health websites, we place a huge emphasis on standards of accuracy, integrity, and balance. Every article we publish undergoes a rigorous editorial process and extensive medical review. In the LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide, we use both front hole and vagina. 'Front hole' is one of the numerous, accepted terms for genitalia we use specifically for certain members of the trans community who identify with it. In no instance in this guide are we saying we want to replace the word vagina. 'Front hole,' as another term for vagina, is also used by the National Institutes of Health, Human Rights Campaign, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal, and Fenway Health in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, the National LGBT Health Education Center, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

The medical term 'vagina' has been replaced with the phrase 'front hole.

Contradiction

A LGBTQIA safe sex guide published by Healthline, a California health information provider, stirred up controversy in August 2018 when a number of conservative web sites took issue with Healthline's use of the term 'front hole' to describe the genitalia of some transgender individuals. Those web sites presented Healthine's LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide as if that organization had entirely replaced the term 'vagina' with the term 'front hole.' The Daily Caller, for example, employed the inaccurate and misleading headline 'San Fran Health Org Gets Rid of 'Vagina' in Favor of 'More Inclusive Front Hole.'' NewsPressed filed a similar report incorrectly stating that 'Gender Fluid Nutcases' were 'demanding' that the vagina be called 'front hole.' The Global Dispatch also wrongly asserted that 'QUILT BAG' (a derogatory term for the LGBTQIA community) activists had won, as Healthline 'rename(d) vagina as 'front hole'' [to] appease transgender men': None of these headlines accurately reflected how the terms 'front hole' and 'vagina' were used in Healthline's safe sex guide, and they left readers with the false impression that the word 'vagina' was being replaced throughout the guide - and perhaps among the larger medical community - in favor of 'front hole.' That wasn't the case. Many of the web sites that took issue with the use of the term 'front hole' pointed to a section in Healthline's safe sex guide about gender-inclusive language: For the purposes of this guide, we'll refer to the vagina as the 'front hole' instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina.' This is gender-inclusive language that's considerate of the fact that some trans people don't identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals. Although this passage, presented in isolation, may have fostered the impression that Healthline was 'replacing' the word 'vagina' with 'front hole,' that wasn't what the organization wrote. Healthline stated that instead of solely using the medical term 'vagina,' they would also employ the term 'front hole.' The truth of that latter statement is evidenced by the fact that the word 'vagina' appeared in the Healthline document 17 times (while 'front hole' was used 16 times). Still, Healthline decided that their original explanation was poorly worded and eventually edited the section to better explicate when and why they used the term 'front hole': For the purposes of this guide, we've chosen to include alternative words for readers to use for their genitals. For example, some trans men choose to use the words 'front hole' or 'internal genital' instead of 'vagina.' Alternatively, some trans women may say 'strapless' or 'girl dick' for penis. This usage is meant for one-on-one communication with trusted persons, such as your doctor or partner, not for broad discussion. In this guide, whenever we use the medical term 'vagina,' we'll also include 'front hole' as clinically recommended by researchers in the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal. Both an archived version of the Healthline guide (captured before the above passage was edited) and the version available at the time of this writing included repeated use of the word 'vagina.' Clearly then, Healthline did not 'get rid of' or 'replace' that word in favor or some other terminology. In addition to clarifying their explanation, Healthline also published an article titled 'We're Not Renaming the Vagina' in response to the controversy that noted the additional usage of 'front whole' by other health organizations and publications as well: Some people are under the impression that Healthline is now using the term 'front hole' instead of vagina. This is simply not true. As one of the world's leading health websites, we place a huge emphasis on standards of accuracy, integrity, and balance. Every article we publish undergoes a rigorous editorial process and extensive medical review. In the LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide, we use both front hole and vagina. 'Front hole' is one of the numerous, accepted terms for genitalia we use specifically for certain members of the trans community who identify with it. In no instance in this guide are we saying we want to replace the word vagina. 'Front hole,' as another term for vagina, is also used by the National Institutes of Health, Human Rights Campaign, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal, and Fenway Health in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, the National LGBT Health Education Center, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

In short, this 'controversy' stemmed from a single health information provider's decision to use term 'front hole' in addition to - not in place of - the word 'vagina' in a safe sex guide created for the LGBTQIA community.

The website Definition.org revealed that Adam Sandler was a Trump supporter.

Contradiction

In February 2021, an online advertisement looked to draw readers to a list of celebrities who supported former U.S. President Donald Trump. A picture in the ad showed actor and comedian Adam Sandler with the words 'Celebs Who Support Trump.' Readers who clicked the ad were led through a 50-page article on Definition.org. The story featured 50 celebrities who purportedly supported Trump. But Sandler didn't appear on any page. The clickbait article appeared to have been published on Sept. 29, 2020. Its headline read: 'The Celebrities and Billionaires That Backed Donald Trump.' While President Donald Trump may not have the approval of a majority of Americans (depending on the poll) there's no doubt he has the backing of many of America's richest citizens and recognizable faces. These well-known Trump backers have donated large sums of money, time, and publicity to ensuring Trump is reelected in 2020. While many of these well-known Trump backers supported the 2016 Trump campaign, some did not. However, all on board the Trump 2020 train, and many of the the billionaire backers have contributed money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee or Trump Victory committee, which is then transferred to the Donald J. Trump For President Committee. The story's first several pages featured familiar faces. For example, Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, appeared on the first page. He was followed by actress and comedian Roseanne Barr, as well as actors Scott Baio, Dennis Quaid, Jon Voight, and James Woods. On July 18, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sandler had been registered with the Republican Party in the past. He also 'performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004.' There was also the time someone named Adam Sandler donated to Trump. However, in 2019, Yahoo reported that it appeared to be a different person who happened to have the same name. That same year, Sandler appeared as his classic 'Opera Man' character on 'Saturday Night Live.' He delivered the following lines during a sketch on 'Weekend Update': Trumpa, Dumpa Trumpa, Dumpa I make - a the wall I playa the golf And they take - a the fall Trumpa, Dumpa Trumpa, Dumpa They afraid to impeach I get to make - a the wall And Putin make me his beetch In sum, it's possible that Sandler privately supported and voted for Trump. However, the ad with a picture of the actor and comedian led to a story that never ended up mentioning him. Since the ad from Definition.org appeared to be nothing more than clickbait, we have rated this claim as 'False.' We previously reported on other stories concerning Sandler, including two death hoaxes that circulated in 2015 and 2017. 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, it's possible that Sandler privately supported and voted for Trump. However, the ad with a picture of the actor and comedian led to a story that never ended up mentioning him. Since the ad from Definition.org appeared to be nothing more than clickbait, we have rated this claim as 'False.' We previously reported on other stories concerning Sandler, including two death hoaxes that circulated in 2015 and 2017. 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.

The website Definition.org revealed that Adam Sandler was a Trump supporter.

Contradiction

In February 2021, an online advertisement looked to draw readers to a list of celebrities who supported former U.S. President Donald Trump. A picture in the ad showed actor and comedian Adam Sandler with the words 'Celebs Who Support Trump.' Readers who clicked the ad were led through a 50-page article on Definition.org. The story featured 50 celebrities who purportedly supported Trump. But Sandler didn't appear on any page. The clickbait article appeared to have been published on Sept. 29, 2020. Its headline read: 'The Celebrities and Billionaires That Backed Donald Trump.' While President Donald Trump may not have the approval of a majority of Americans (depending on the poll) there's no doubt he has the backing of many of America's richest citizens and recognizable faces. These well-known Trump backers have donated large sums of money, time, and publicity to ensuring Trump is reelected in 2020. While many of these well-known Trump backers supported the 2016 Trump campaign, some did not. However, all on board the Trump 2020 train, and many of the the billionaire backers have contributed money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee or Trump Victory committee, which is then transferred to the Donald J. Trump For President Committee. The story's first several pages featured familiar faces. For example, Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, appeared on the first page. He was followed by actress and comedian Roseanne Barr, as well as actors Scott Baio, Dennis Quaid, Jon Voight, and James Woods. On July 18, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sandler had been registered with the Republican Party in the past. He also 'performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004.' There was also the time someone named Adam Sandler donated to Trump. However, in 2019, Yahoo reported that it appeared to be a different person who happened to have the same name. That same year, Sandler appeared as his classic 'Opera Man' character on 'Saturday Night Live.' He delivered the following lines during a sketch on 'Weekend Update': Trumpa, Dumpa Trumpa, Dumpa I make - a the wall I playa the golf And they take - a the fall Trumpa, Dumpa Trumpa, Dumpa They afraid to impeach I get to make - a the wall And Putin make me his beetch In sum, it's possible that Sandler privately supported and voted for Trump. However, the ad with a picture of the actor and comedian led to a story that never ended up mentioning him. Since the ad from Definition.org appeared to be nothing more than clickbait, we have rated this claim as 'False.' We previously reported on other stories concerning Sandler, including two death hoaxes that circulated in 2015 and 2017. 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, it's possible that Sandler privately supported and voted for Trump. However, the ad with a picture of the actor and comedian led to a story that never ended up mentioning him. Since the ad from Definition.org appeared to be nothing more than clickbait, we have rated this claim as 'False.' We previously reported on other stories concerning Sandler, including two death hoaxes that circulated in 2015 and 2017. 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.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

The test of a 5G cellular network is the cause of unexplained bird deaths occurring in a park in The Hague, Netherlands.

Contradiction

On 5 November 2018, Erin Elizabeth's medical conspiracy blog Health Nut News 'reported' a seemingly disturbing story out of the Netherlands with the headline 'Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands.' It turned out that Elizabeth's article was the wholesale regurgitation of a series of Facebook posts authored by a man named John Kuhles who runs several anti-5G conspiracy websites and social media pages. Kuhles, who recently suggested that the devastating November 2018 California wildfires were triggered by a direct energy weapon as an act of revenge from the 'Ruling Elite' to punish the state for vetoing a 'mass 5G deployment' plan, tied the factual existence of unexplained bird deaths at a park (Huijgenspark) in The Hague, Netherlands, to a non-existent test of a next generation cell phone network (5G) that Kuhles claimed (without evidence) took place simultaneous with the bird deaths: About a week ago at The Hague, many birds died spontaneously, falling dead in a park. You likely haven't heard a lot about this because it seems keeping it quiet was the plan all along. However, when about 150 more suddenly died- bringing the death toll to 297- some started to take notice. And if you are looking around that park you might have seen what is on the corner of the roof across the street from where they died: a new 5G mast, where they had done a test, in connection with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station. And harm happened, indeed. Immediately afterward, birds fell dead from the trees. And the nearby ducks that were swimming seemed to react very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on the street or in the canal. Again, almost at the exact same time that those animals died, near the station, Holland Spoor was tested with a 5G transmitter mast ... All the information that follows comes from John Kuhles' public Facebook page. Did Hundreds of Birds Die in a Short Period of Time at Huijgenspark? It is true a series of mysterious bird deaths has occurred at a park in The Hague. According to the municipal government, the birds began to die on 19 October 2018, and soon afterwards those deaths inspired a dog ban in Huijgenspark as a precautionary measure: Between Friday, 19 October and Saturday, 3 November 2018, 337 dead starlings and 2 dead common wood pigeons were found. The municipality cannot rule out the possibility that the birds were poisoned. This is why the municipality has taken extra precautionary measures and announced a temporary ban on dogs for Huygenspark. Testing performed by the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority ruled out West Nile virus and the usutu virus, but it had not yet ruled out other viruses or poisoning as of 12 November 2018. A team of experts will continue to investigate the cause of these deaths: The municipality, together with De Wulp bird rescue, has asked experts in fauna research to look into this question. The cause of death for the birds is being investigated by Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (Lelystad), Dutch Wildlife Health Centre (Utrecht), Erasmus University (Rotterdam) and Universiteit Gent. Initial results are expected in mid-November 2018. Mysterious bird deaths, though great fodder for conspiracy cranks, are not uncommon. Due to their unexplained nature, they are popular with those seeking to stoke fears or make political or religious points. In 2011, for example, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Sweden were the site of thousands of bird deaths in a short time, which the media dubbed 'the aflockalypse.' Contemporaneous reporting by the Associated Press made it clear that these mass die-offs are quite common and often unexplained: Since the 1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin has tracked mass deaths among birds, fish and other critters, said wildlife disease specialist LeAnn White. At times the sky and the streams just turn deadly. Sometimes it's disease, sometimes pollution. Other times it's just a mystery ... On average, 163 such events are reported to the federal government each year, according to USGS records. Did a 5G Wireless Test Take Place Near Huijgenspark at the Time of the Bird Deaths? 5G is the proposed 5th generation cellular network, and it is technology that is largely still in development. Various countries have tested forms of it, including The Netherlands, but its widespread adoption is not expected until 2020. We will discuss the technical aspects of 5G compared to existing cellular technology in the next section, but widespread access to this technology is a priority for the Dutch government, and they have performed tests of the technology a handful of times. One such test did occur in an area generally near Huijgenspark, but it took place on 28 June 2018, and it was not followed by a massive bird die-off. For this test, the Dutch equivalent of the FCC provided a one-day permit for the telecommunication company Huawei to use the 5G frequencies needed for the test: Huawei has demonstrated a live 5G network in The Hague, using 100 MHz of spectrum in the C-band at 3.5 GHz. As the frequencies are not normally available for mobile services in the Netherlands, the Telecom Agency granted a special one-day permit for the demonstration at the KPN office in the Voorburg area. The band is available for local licensing, but in allotments far smaller than the full 100 MHz width that is standardized for 5G. No evidence suggests that any other 5G test ever occurred in The Hague or that a 5G antenna was installed near that park conveniently out of view. We reached out via Twitter to the Dutch company NS, the operator of the train station allegedly involved in the 5G test, and a representative told us that they were 'unaware that recent 5G tests were conducted at this location.' A representative of KPN, the largest mobile operator in The Netherlands, told us via Twitter that 'I can be very clear about this matter; there are no 5G tests in Den Haag. This is a complete hoax.' Huawei, the cellular provider who took part in the one-day June test, did not respond to our inquiry about a test occurring, but the Dutch equivalent to the FCC asserted that no such test occurred. It bears mentioning that Kuhles has since walked back his claim that a 5G test occurred at all (though this fact does not appear to have dissuaded Erin Elizabeth from running with her story), and he has now moved the goalposts so far as to claim that perhaps it was just a whole lot of 4G LTE networks getting up in those birds' business. Either way, from a scientific standpoint his ideas would generously be described as dubious. Could 5G Technology Have Caused Something Like This in the First Place? Promoters of 5G technology promise faster data rates along with reduced energy and financial cost. For the most part, these improvements will come from utilizing higher frequency radio bands and the development of more advanced cellular towers: Typically when a new mobile wireless technology comes along (like 5G), it's assigned a higher radio frequency ... The reason new wireless technologies occupy higher frequencies is because they typically aren't in use and move information at a much faster speed. The problem is that higher frequency signals don't travel as far as lower frequencies, so multiple input and output antennas (MIMOs) will probably be used to boost signals anywhere 5G is offered. In Europe, 5G will make use of three frequency ranges: a low-frequency 700MHz 'coverage layer,' a 3.4-3.8GHz band which will be the primary bandwidth, and a 'super data layer' in the higher frequency 24.25-27.5GHz band. This latter range is more theoretical and is not what has been tested in The Netherlands thus far, as the only known test of 5G in the Hague utilized the 3.4-3.8GHz band. Regardless, all of these frequencies fall within a range considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (first in 1998 and again in 2009) to be safe: It is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields ... The plausibility of the various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low. In addition, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at low levels of exposure. Therefore, ICNIRP reconfirms the 1998 basic restrictions in the frequency range 100 kHz-300 GHz until further notice. Radio waves used in cellular technology can be described both by their frequency (or wavelength) and in terms of the energy being used to carry that frequency. The aforementioned restrictions refer to limits on the energy carrying a signal, which create exposure limits for various frequencies. Dr. Eric van Rongen, a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, told us via email that the levels of exposure in the 5G frequency range are comparable to existing technology: The levels of exposure would be comparable to those of the current (3G and 4G) networks, and thus very low, much lower than the exposure limits. The only way one could imagine death of birds as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields is with very high level exposure that results in considerable heating ... But the levels that are used by mobile telecom antennas are not strong enough for this to happen. There are maybe millions of such antennas around the world and this has never been reported. 'Even if there would have been 5G exposure,' he told us, it is 'very unlikely that that could cause the [bird] mortality.' 'My 5G Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

Conclusions Are Assertions/Conjecture with A QUESTION Mark!' One of the great benefits to being a conspiracy blogger, outside of the fact that copy and pasting a Facebook post counts as 'reporting' and that objective reality need not be considered, is that you don't really need to follow up or correct yourself even when the person pushing a given conspiracy completely changes his tune. Erin Elizabeth's post, which has been shared well over 125,000 times on Facebook, included all of Khule's posts on the subject up to 2 November 2018. But on 8 November 2018, Kuhles posted again, appealing to his own authority while making sure everyone knew he wasn't really all that serious about that whole 5G thing in the first place. He brushed off factual criticism by calling his doubters sheeple and capitalizing certain words to make the letters LIE more prominent: Some think there is 'no 5G' in Den Haag. That is a lie (or mis-perception) the so called 'conclusions' of some (pseudo)-skeptics. Some 'Authorities' claim a lot and is parroted by lesser authorities and beLIEved by the masses ... it is a system of beLIEfs, false assumptions copy catted ... That problem is with almost all controversial topics, nothing new ... most ppl just love to be told 'what is' ... My 5G conclusions are assertions/conjecture with a QUESTION mark! As compelling as this kind of testimony may be to Erin Elizabeth's Health Nut News, the facts are this: No 5G test occurred during the time that the mysterious starling deaths occurred, and the only person suggesting otherwise is someone with a vendetta against both objective reality and 5G wireless. Even if a 5G test had occurred, however, no mechanism exists that would explain how it could have affected starlings at all, let alone only starlings and no other birds or animals in the region.Recent Updates Correction [24 September 2019]: Corrected spelling of Kuhles.

A photograph shows a woman attempting to pump gas with a 'sorry, out of service' bag covering the handle into a car with a Joe Biden bumper sticker.

Contradiction

On Sept. 8, 2021, a Facebook user posted a photograph that showed a woman attempting to pump gas with a handle covered by a yellow bag that read, 'sorry, out of service.' Also featured in the picture was a 'Build Back Better Biden' bumper sticker, purportedly showing that the woman was a supporter of U.S. President Joe Biden. However, further study showed that the bumper sticker was digitally added into the photo, turning a nonpolitical moment into a politically misleading one. Some of the user comments even turned racial. This post only received several hundred shares, but others were spread thousands of times. We found the same digitally altered photograph was tweeted by the conservative organization Young Americans for Liberty and received tens of thousands of shares. The tweet received nearly 3,000 retweets and more than 15,000 likes. The doctored picture was also posted a seemingly endless number of times by other accounts on social media. The oldest post of the picture that we found looked to be from TexasBowhunter.com on May 13, 2021. The car did not appear to have any bumper stickers in that version. It's unclear if other aspects of the photo had also been previously added with digital editing software, such as the yellow 'out of service' bag. Some social media comments suggested that the woman attempting to pump gas might have been given the yellow bag to protect her hands from potential infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the picture appeared to have been posted in the days following the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline, which might make sense in terms of why the gas pump was out of service. Other comments on social media seemed to poke fun at the fact that the woman pumping gas was wearing a mask outdoors. However, it's possible that the woman was experiencing symptoms and was wearing a mask to help protect others while out of her home, something that the CDC recommends. In sum, a photograph of a woman at a gas pump was digitally altered to add a Biden bumper sticker. Sources 'COVID-19 and Your Health.' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html.

In sum, a photograph of a woman at a gas pump was digitally altered to add a Biden bumper sticker. Sources 'COVID-19 and Your Health.' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/steps-when-sick.html.

The ingredients of two popular plant-based burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat burgers, are indistinguishable from dog food.

Contradiction

In late June, 2019, University of California-Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner tweeted the ingredient list of three food items, two of which were popular plant-based burgers and one of which was 'premium dog food': Trivia quiz: following are the ingredients of three food/feed items. Two of them are fake burgers (namely @ImpossibleFoods burger and @BeyondMeat burger, respectively) and the third is premium dog food. Can you pick the latter? pic.twitter.com/uqzWIkxpQ7 - Frank Mitloehner (@GHGGuru) June 27, 2019 The point, Mitloehner later tweeted, was that the two most notable plant-based imitation burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat Burgers, were 'indistinguishable from dog food.' From a factual standpoint, the three images accurately depict ingredient lists for (from left to right) a Beyond Meat Burger, 'Walk About Dog Food' brand 'Super Premium' grain-free vegan dog food, and an Impossible Burger. Let's get into the weeds: 10 of the ingredients (taking some chemical liberties and ignoring entirely the relative amounts of each) of the 20 listed for the Impossible Burger can also be found among the 28 in the vegan, grain-free dog food: Impossible Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Food Starch Modified Pea Starch Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E) Vitamin E Supplement Niacin Niacin Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6) Pyridoxine Hydrochloride Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) Riboflavin Supplement Salt Salt Sunflower Oil Sunflower Oil Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1) Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1) Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 Supplement Zinc Gluconate Zinc Proteinate Most of the shared ingredients are vitamins and minerals. Using the current ingredient list (which differs slightly from the one used in the viral tweet), two of the 18 Beyond Meat burger ingredients also appear among the 28 in the vegan grain-free dog food: Beyond Meat Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Pea Protein Isolate Pea Protein Salt Salt In the case of the Beyond Meat burger comparison, both use peas as their source for protein. Indistinguishability is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but significant differences do exist between the burger-ingredient lists and the dog-food lists. A broader question, though, is what scientific point does such a comparison serve? One could make a similar argument that the ingredients in high-quality, organic beef dog food are 'nearly indistinguishable' from canned beef chili served in the supermarket, but such a comparison wouldn't be all that illustrative. Indeed, like the Beyond Meat burger and the vegan dog food, the chili and the beef dog food both use the same protein source. We asked Mitloehner, who studies chemical emissions from animal agricultural practices and who has served as an expert witness defending the agricultural industry in the U.S. Congress, what scientific point he was illustrating with his tweet. Via email, he told us his concerns were with how the plant-based burgers were marketed: These plant-based alternatives are often marketed as burgers made from plants. In reality, they fully qualify for the NOVA definition of 'ultra-processed foods,' of which many (or most) nutrition scientists, dietitians and clinicians warn us constantly. The claim of them being more healthy and/or wholesome than real meat is not supported by facts. These patties are as ultra-processed and consist of almost identical ingredients as dog kibbles. If you compare the three, you might have had a hard time identifying the dog food yourself, right? Asked about his interest in the topic, Mitloehner told us it stemmed from 'the many media requests I receive about plant-based products including several [media appearences] alongside [Impossible Foods founder] Pat Brown and [Beyond Meat founder] Ethan Brown and the many factually incorrect claims they make about animal agriculture, which often otherwise go unchallenged in the media.' The original conceit behind these plant-based burgers was one of sustainability: being able to produce something that tastes like meat using a process that could scale up and still be sustainable. As an example, this is why the Impossible Burger uses GMO yeast to produce a protein - heme - that could theoretically be produced by widespread soy cultivation. The amount of soy required to produce heme would not be sustainable in the long-run. (Beyond Meat does not use GMO products and does not include the protein heme, which is touted as the key to Impossible Burger's taste.) These burgers are indeed often marketed as a healthy alternative to meat, and that assertion is a bit muddier. Pound for pound, meatless burgers have comparable amounts of protein, and Impossible Burgers have the same (or more) vitamins, and minerals added, according to Harvard Medical School's Health Blog: The protein content of these newer plant-based burgers has been created to compete with beef and poultry gram for gram. Both the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have comparable amounts, the former deriving protein mainly from soy and the later from peas and mung beans. Impossible Burger also adds vitamins and minerals found in animal proteins - like vitamin B12 and zinc - in amounts equal to (and in some cases, greater than) both red meat and poultry. On the negative side, these plant-based burgers also contain comparable, if not elevated, amounts of saturated fat, which can contribute to heart disease. Additionally, Mitloehner's point about the level of processing in plant-based burgers is a valid one - many of the ingredients are heavily processed and appear to meet international standards for ultra-processed food - generally considered to come with a host of nutritional deficiencies. In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

The ingredients of two popular plant-based burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat burgers, are indistinguishable from dog food.

Contradiction

In late June, 2019, University of California-Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner tweeted the ingredient list of three food items, two of which were popular plant-based burgers and one of which was 'premium dog food': Trivia quiz: following are the ingredients of three food/feed items. Two of them are fake burgers (namely @ImpossibleFoods burger and @BeyondMeat burger, respectively) and the third is premium dog food. Can you pick the latter? pic.twitter.com/uqzWIkxpQ7 - Frank Mitloehner (@GHGGuru) June 27, 2019 The point, Mitloehner later tweeted, was that the two most notable plant-based imitation burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat Burgers, were 'indistinguishable from dog food.' From a factual standpoint, the three images accurately depict ingredient lists for (from left to right) a Beyond Meat Burger, 'Walk About Dog Food' brand 'Super Premium' grain-free vegan dog food, and an Impossible Burger. Let's get into the weeds: 10 of the ingredients (taking some chemical liberties and ignoring entirely the relative amounts of each) of the 20 listed for the Impossible Burger can also be found among the 28 in the vegan, grain-free dog food: Impossible Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Food Starch Modified Pea Starch Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E) Vitamin E Supplement Niacin Niacin Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6) Pyridoxine Hydrochloride Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) Riboflavin Supplement Salt Salt Sunflower Oil Sunflower Oil Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1) Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1) Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 Supplement Zinc Gluconate Zinc Proteinate Most of the shared ingredients are vitamins and minerals. Using the current ingredient list (which differs slightly from the one used in the viral tweet), two of the 18 Beyond Meat burger ingredients also appear among the 28 in the vegan grain-free dog food: Beyond Meat Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Pea Protein Isolate Pea Protein Salt Salt In the case of the Beyond Meat burger comparison, both use peas as their source for protein. Indistinguishability is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but significant differences do exist between the burger-ingredient lists and the dog-food lists. A broader question, though, is what scientific point does such a comparison serve? One could make a similar argument that the ingredients in high-quality, organic beef dog food are 'nearly indistinguishable' from canned beef chili served in the supermarket, but such a comparison wouldn't be all that illustrative. Indeed, like the Beyond Meat burger and the vegan dog food, the chili and the beef dog food both use the same protein source. We asked Mitloehner, who studies chemical emissions from animal agricultural practices and who has served as an expert witness defending the agricultural industry in the U.S. Congress, what scientific point he was illustrating with his tweet. Via email, he told us his concerns were with how the plant-based burgers were marketed: These plant-based alternatives are often marketed as burgers made from plants. In reality, they fully qualify for the NOVA definition of 'ultra-processed foods,' of which many (or most) nutrition scientists, dietitians and clinicians warn us constantly. The claim of them being more healthy and/or wholesome than real meat is not supported by facts. These patties are as ultra-processed and consist of almost identical ingredients as dog kibbles. If you compare the three, you might have had a hard time identifying the dog food yourself, right? Asked about his interest in the topic, Mitloehner told us it stemmed from 'the many media requests I receive about plant-based products including several [media appearences] alongside [Impossible Foods founder] Pat Brown and [Beyond Meat founder] Ethan Brown and the many factually incorrect claims they make about animal agriculture, which often otherwise go unchallenged in the media.' The original conceit behind these plant-based burgers was one of sustainability: being able to produce something that tastes like meat using a process that could scale up and still be sustainable. As an example, this is why the Impossible Burger uses GMO yeast to produce a protein - heme - that could theoretically be produced by widespread soy cultivation. The amount of soy required to produce heme would not be sustainable in the long-run. (Beyond Meat does not use GMO products and does not include the protein heme, which is touted as the key to Impossible Burger's taste.) These burgers are indeed often marketed as a healthy alternative to meat, and that assertion is a bit muddier. Pound for pound, meatless burgers have comparable amounts of protein, and Impossible Burgers have the same (or more) vitamins, and minerals added, according to Harvard Medical School's Health Blog: The protein content of these newer plant-based burgers has been created to compete with beef and poultry gram for gram. Both the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have comparable amounts, the former deriving protein mainly from soy and the later from peas and mung beans. Impossible Burger also adds vitamins and minerals found in animal proteins - like vitamin B12 and zinc - in amounts equal to (and in some cases, greater than) both red meat and poultry. On the negative side, these plant-based burgers also contain comparable, if not elevated, amounts of saturated fat, which can contribute to heart disease. Additionally, Mitloehner's point about the level of processing in plant-based burgers is a valid one - many of the ingredients are heavily processed and appear to meet international standards for ultra-processed food - generally considered to come with a host of nutritional deficiencies. In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

The ingredients of two popular plant-based burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat burgers, are indistinguishable from dog food.

Contradiction

In late June, 2019, University of California-Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner tweeted the ingredient list of three food items, two of which were popular plant-based burgers and one of which was 'premium dog food': Trivia quiz: following are the ingredients of three food/feed items. Two of them are fake burgers (namely @ImpossibleFoods burger and @BeyondMeat burger, respectively) and the third is premium dog food. Can you pick the latter? pic.twitter.com/uqzWIkxpQ7 - Frank Mitloehner (@GHGGuru) June 27, 2019 The point, Mitloehner later tweeted, was that the two most notable plant-based imitation burgers, Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat Burgers, were 'indistinguishable from dog food.' From a factual standpoint, the three images accurately depict ingredient lists for (from left to right) a Beyond Meat Burger, 'Walk About Dog Food' brand 'Super Premium' grain-free vegan dog food, and an Impossible Burger. Let's get into the weeds: 10 of the ingredients (taking some chemical liberties and ignoring entirely the relative amounts of each) of the 20 listed for the Impossible Burger can also be found among the 28 in the vegan, grain-free dog food: Impossible Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Food Starch Modified Pea Starch Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E) Vitamin E Supplement Niacin Niacin Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6) Pyridoxine Hydrochloride Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) Riboflavin Supplement Salt Salt Sunflower Oil Sunflower Oil Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1) Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1) Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 Supplement Zinc Gluconate Zinc Proteinate Most of the shared ingredients are vitamins and minerals. Using the current ingredient list (which differs slightly from the one used in the viral tweet), two of the 18 Beyond Meat burger ingredients also appear among the 28 in the vegan grain-free dog food: Beyond Meat Burger Dog Food (grain-free vegan) Pea Protein Isolate Pea Protein Salt Salt In the case of the Beyond Meat burger comparison, both use peas as their source for protein. Indistinguishability is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but significant differences do exist between the burger-ingredient lists and the dog-food lists. A broader question, though, is what scientific point does such a comparison serve? One could make a similar argument that the ingredients in high-quality, organic beef dog food are 'nearly indistinguishable' from canned beef chili served in the supermarket, but such a comparison wouldn't be all that illustrative. Indeed, like the Beyond Meat burger and the vegan dog food, the chili and the beef dog food both use the same protein source. We asked Mitloehner, who studies chemical emissions from animal agricultural practices and who has served as an expert witness defending the agricultural industry in the U.S. Congress, what scientific point he was illustrating with his tweet. Via email, he told us his concerns were with how the plant-based burgers were marketed: These plant-based alternatives are often marketed as burgers made from plants. In reality, they fully qualify for the NOVA definition of 'ultra-processed foods,' of which many (or most) nutrition scientists, dietitians and clinicians warn us constantly. The claim of them being more healthy and/or wholesome than real meat is not supported by facts. These patties are as ultra-processed and consist of almost identical ingredients as dog kibbles. If you compare the three, you might have had a hard time identifying the dog food yourself, right? Asked about his interest in the topic, Mitloehner told us it stemmed from 'the many media requests I receive about plant-based products including several [media appearences] alongside [Impossible Foods founder] Pat Brown and [Beyond Meat founder] Ethan Brown and the many factually incorrect claims they make about animal agriculture, which often otherwise go unchallenged in the media.' The original conceit behind these plant-based burgers was one of sustainability: being able to produce something that tastes like meat using a process that could scale up and still be sustainable. As an example, this is why the Impossible Burger uses GMO yeast to produce a protein - heme - that could theoretically be produced by widespread soy cultivation. The amount of soy required to produce heme would not be sustainable in the long-run. (Beyond Meat does not use GMO products and does not include the protein heme, which is touted as the key to Impossible Burger's taste.) These burgers are indeed often marketed as a healthy alternative to meat, and that assertion is a bit muddier. Pound for pound, meatless burgers have comparable amounts of protein, and Impossible Burgers have the same (or more) vitamins, and minerals added, according to Harvard Medical School's Health Blog: The protein content of these newer plant-based burgers has been created to compete with beef and poultry gram for gram. Both the Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have comparable amounts, the former deriving protein mainly from soy and the later from peas and mung beans. Impossible Burger also adds vitamins and minerals found in animal proteins - like vitamin B12 and zinc - in amounts equal to (and in some cases, greater than) both red meat and poultry. On the negative side, these plant-based burgers also contain comparable, if not elevated, amounts of saturated fat, which can contribute to heart disease. Additionally, Mitloehner's point about the level of processing in plant-based burgers is a valid one - many of the ingredients are heavily processed and appear to meet international standards for ultra-processed food - generally considered to come with a host of nutritional deficiencies. In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

In sum, there are shared chemicals in vegan dog food and plant-based burgers. In our view, two shared ingredients out of a combined 46 (in the case of Beyond Meat) or 10 shared ingredients out of a combined 48 (in the case of the Impossible Burger) do not meet the threshold for being 'indistinguishable,' and as such we rank the claim mostly false.

A photograph shows a child smoking a cigarette at a soccer game.

Contradiction

On Sept. 8, 2019, an image supposedly showing a child smoking during a football match went viral on Twitter: This image is a screenshot from a video that was shared on Twitter. The video had racked up more than 8 million views and had generated hundreds of comments from people who were shocked to see a child smoking a cigarette: This video, however, does not feature a child. The person smoking in this footage is actually a 36-year-old man. While the man may look particularly young in the above-displayed clip, a photograph posted by Instagram user Yüreğini Koy Ortaya shows this smoking fan is an adult: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yüreğini Koy Ortaya (@yureginikoyortaya) on Sep 8, 2019 at 11:59am PDT Ortaya wrote: ''Sigara içen çocuk' diye paylaşsigim arkadaşın 36 yaşında olduğu ortaya çıkdi.' This can be roughly translated to: ''The smoking child' turned out to be a 36-year-old friend.'

On Sept. 8, 2019, an image supposedly showing a child smoking during a football match went viral on Twitter: This image is a screenshot from a video that was shared on Twitter. The video had racked up more than 8 million views and had generated hundreds of comments from people who were shocked to see a child smoking a cigarette: This video, however, does not feature a child. The person smoking in this footage is actually a 36-year-old man. While the man may look particularly young in the above-displayed clip, a photograph posted by Instagram user Yüreğini Koy Ortaya shows this smoking fan is an adult: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Yüreğini Koy Ortaya (@yureginikoyortaya) on Sep 8, 2019 at 11:59am PDT Ortaya wrote: ''Sigara içen çocuk' diye paylaşsigim arkadaşın 36 yaşında olduğu ortaya çıkdi.' This can be roughly translated to: ''The smoking child' turned out to be a 36-year-old friend.'

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

The federal government provides a much greater monthly allowance to refugees than to retirees.

Contradiction

Some political issues, it seems, are so emotionally charged that proponents of one side or another will promulgate anything that reflects their viewpoint, no matter how irrelevant, inapplicable, outdated, or erroneous it might be. The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and for years claims about asylum seekers and refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American retirees have been widely disseminated online: Pensioners should apply as refugees! It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Lets send this to all Americans, so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 years. Please forward to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years - to the over-taxed American. SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW American Government Seniors Policy Virtually everything claimed in the textual example above is wrong: the information is fifteen years old, it was originally about government policy in Canada and not the U.S. (someone merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't true (about either Canada or the U.S.) when it was written and still isn't true now. The 'pensioners vs. refugees' brouhaha began back in March 2004, when the Toronto Star published an article about plans for Canada to work in conjunction with the United Nations to settle asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp in some smaller Canadian cities (outside the usual immigrant magnet communities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). As the Star's ombudsman later explained, a single paragraph in the midst of the article was somewhat ambiguous about the amount of financial assistance the Canadian government would be providing to these refugees: Halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen trouble was lurking. In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890 from Ottawa as a 'start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find employment.' In addition, they get 'a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed from the government,' the story said. In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer. Actually, the $1,890 'start-up allowance' - including a $580 monthly social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is used. Unfortunately, one Star reader who misunderstood the issue set loose an e-mail polemic about refugee entitlement without waiting for clarification, and the author of a follow-up letter to the editor published in the Star repeated the erroneous claim that the African refugees would be collecting monthly government allowances nearly double those provided to pensioners: In quick order, two things happened after the article ran. First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things, it said charity begins at home and Canada should not 'roll out the welcome mat' for refugees. The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect $2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners. More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of whom likely spread the word to wider audiences. Ah, the wonders of the Internet! Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred. The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 'compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. 'Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees?' reasoned the writer. In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

In short order, e-mail forwards like the following began winging their way into the inboxes of thousands of Canadians (and a good many Americans to boot): Only in Canada. Do not apply for your old age pension. Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. Please forward this to every Canadian you know. By November 2004, the Star noted that: It [has] became increasingly clear a disturbing urban myth has been born. Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the world, usually one or two a week. Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger. 'Let's send this to all Canadians,' one e-mail roared, 'so we can all be pissed off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years.' Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) attempted to set the record straight about the amounts of financial assistance from the federal government provided to refugees vs. pensioners: Refugees don't receive more financial assistance from the federal government than Canadian pensioners. In [a letter to the Toronto Star], a one-time, start-up payment provided to some refugees in Canada was mistaken for an ongoing, monthly payment. Unfortunately, although the newspaper published a clarification, the misleading information had already spread widely over e-mail and the internet. In truth, about three quarters of refugees receive financial assistance from the federal government, for a limited time, and at levels lower than Canadian pensioners. They are known as government-assisted refugees. We have to remember that many of these people are fleeing from unimaginable hardship, and have lived in refugee camps for several years. Others are victims of trauma or torture in their home countries. Many arrive with little more than a few personal belongings, if that. Canada has a humanitarian role to accept refugees and help them start their new lives here. For this reason, government-assisted refugees get a one-time payment of up to $1,095 from the federal government to cover essentials - basic, start-up needs like food, furniture and clothing. They also receive a temporary monthly allowance for food and shelter that is based on provincial social assistance rates. In Ontario, for example, a single refugee would receive $592 per month. This assistance is temporary - lasting only for one year or until they can find a job, whichever comes first. This short-term support for refugees is a far cry from the lifetime benefits for Canada's seniors. The Old Age Security (OAS) program, for example, provides people who have lived in Canada for at least 10 years with a pension at age 65. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is an additional monthly benefit for low-income pensioners. The Canada Pension Plan (CPP), or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) for people in Quebec, pays a monthly retirement pension to people who have worked and contributed to the plan over their career. In July 2006, Canadian seniors received an average of $463.20 in OAS benefits and $472.79 in CPP retirement benefits ($388.94 in QPP). Lower income OAS recipients also qualified for an average of an additional $361.94 in GIS benefits. In 2015 and 2016, the same statements began once again circulating around social media, this time focusing on refugees coming from Syria. The claims were getting so widely spread that the Canadian government once again addressed it on the CIC web site, saying: No. Refugees do not get more financial help from the federal government than Canadian pensioners do. A widely circulated email makes this false claim. The email mistakenly includes the one-time start-up payment as part of the monthly payment. The amount of monthly financial support that government-assisted refugees get is based on provincial social assistance rates. It is the minimum amount needed to cover only the most basic food and shelter needs. Many refugees selected for resettlement to Canada have been forced to flee their country because of extreme hardship. Some may have been living in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they must start their lives again in a country very different from their own. In keeping with Canada's proud humanitarian traditions, individuals and families get immediate and essential services and support to help them become established in Canada. It's worth noting that in Canada, much of the financial assistance is in the form of loans, which refugees have to pay back with interest. Also, as of January 2016, the alleged monthly allowances of these imaginary pensioners, no matter which country they are supposed to be living in, have not changed in more than a decade. In January 2010, some e-mailed versions of this item were prefaced with the following introduction: From a Florida ER doctor: Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8, all Illegal Anchor Babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, 'We are the dumbest nation on earth,' Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) For we Elected the Idiot Ideologues who have passed the Bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a Revolution, If the Illegal Immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004. She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22' (notch) for her. It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in Social Assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month. This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Maybe our Pensioners should apply as Refugees! Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the Refugees cut back to $1,012 and the Pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. PLEASE SHOW THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW In September 2017, an April 2016 Facebook iteration of the rumor shared by Dan Shea began circulating once again. As of 13 September 2017, it had been shared well more than a quarter of a million times:

As of June 2019, the United States was ranked as having the cleanest air in the world.

Contradiction

During a visit to Ireland on 5 June 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump was confronted by a reporter with remarks made by Irish President Michael D. Higgins, who had said Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement was 'regressive and pernicious.' In response, Trump made a series of claims about the state of the environment in the United States under his presidency: 'Well I haven't heard those comments, but we have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it's gotten better since I'm [sic] president. We have the cleanest water, it's crystal clean, and I always say 'I want crystal clean water and air.' So, I haven't heard his [Higgins'] comments, but we do have - we're setting records, environmentally.'  We asked the White House what the evidentiary basis was for the president's claim that the U.S. has the world's cleanest air, but we did not receive a response of any kind in time for publication. It's a claim Trump has made before. In October 2018, he tweeted 'America: the Cleanest Air in the World - BY FAR!' along with a graphic that purportedly originated with World Health Organization (WHO) data: 'America: the Cleanest Air in the World - BY FAR!' pic.twitter.com/rMtxHSnof4 - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2018 The very source cited by Trump in October 2018 actually contradicted his claim, and other reliable rankings of air quality place several countries ahead of the United States. As such, Trump's claim was false. Analysis The map that Trump tweeted out in 2018 showed 'annual average concentrations of ambient (outdoor) fine particulate matter.' It originated in an April 2018 report published by WHO but showed measurements that were taken in 2016, a time when Trump was not president and had no influence over U.S. environmental policy. Trump was therefore, perhaps unknowingly, celebrating a level of air quality achieved under the presidency of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Specifically, the map showed concentrations of a type of air pollutant known as PM 2.5 - particulate matter (PM) with a diameter of around 2.5 micrometers. (A micrometer is one-thousandth of a millimeter.) As the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains, a PM 2.5 particle is around 30 times smaller than the diameter of a strand of human hair. Scientists and environmental authorities track the open-air levels of PM 2.5 and PM 10 (particulate matter with a diameter of around 10 micrometers) as two major measures of air pollution. So the map that Trump posted in 2018, alongside his claim that the U.S. had the world's cleanest air, was based on data that actually found in 2016 the U.S. had the 10th-lowest annual average concentration of PM 2.5., with 7.4 micrograms of PM 2.5 per cubic meter. In urban areas the U.S. ranked ninth, and in rural areas the U.S. also ranked 10th for PM 2.5 exposure: 2016 Concentration of PM 2.5 (Micrograms/cubic meter) Country Concentration of PM 2.5 1. New Zealand 2. Brunei Darussalam 3. Finland 4. Sweden 5. Iceland 6. Canada 7. Estonia 8. Norway 9. Australia 10. United States of America 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.4 According to another robust ranking, the United States also falls 10th among nations for air quality. The 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) report on air quality, produced by Yale University and Columbia University, measures air quality in three ways: PM 2.5 exposure (the same measure as outlined in the previous section) PM 2.5 exceedance (the proportion of a country's population that experiences PM 2.5 exposure above certain thresholds set by the WHO) Household solid fuels and the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost per 100,000 people (a somewhat complicated formula commonly used in public-health research to estimate the overall impact of a certain phenomenon on a population, in terms of death and disease). The EPI aggregated these three measures and arrived at a list of 10 'Leaders in Air Quality,' with Australia and Barbados each ranked first and the United States ranked 10th: Conclusion Clearly, the United States performs superbly well by several measures of air quality, as evidenced by its ranking among the top 10 out of almost 200 countries. However, President Trump quite definitively and specifically claimed in October 2018 and June 2019 that the U.S. had 'the cleanest air in the world.' This is demonstrably false based on the most recent and reliable data available. Those rankings could change in future years, but such changes would not alter the fact that Trump's sweeping claim was false when he made it, in both 2018 and 2019.

Conclusion Clearly, the United States performs superbly well by several measures of air quality, as evidenced by its ranking among the top 10 out of almost 200 countries. However, President Trump quite definitively and specifically claimed in October 2018 and June 2019 that the U.S. had 'the cleanest air in the world.' This is demonstrably false based on the most recent and reliable data available. Those rankings could change in future years, but such changes would not alter the fact that Trump's sweeping claim was false when he made it, in both 2018 and 2019.

A Facebook post is correct in saying N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks can be dangerous and/or ineffective in protecting against the spread of COVID-19 based on CDC and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

Contradiction

Another day, another viral claim about the effectiveness (or not) of face masks amid the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. A popular Facebook post that had been copied and pasted numerous times in June repeated spurious but familiar claims about masks, this time selectively citing U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) recommendations: In July 2020, a similar post - this time attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - made almost identical claims about N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. This photo circulated online: The lengthy posts focused on three different types of protective masks: N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. We tackle assertions about each one below. N95 Masks According to the posts your unfiltered, potentially infectious breath could harm others if you are breathing through an N95 respirator. N95 masks: are designed for CONTAMINATED environments. That means when you exhale through N95 the design is that you are exhaling into contamination. The exhale from N95 masks are vented to breath straight out without filtration. They don't filter the air on the way out. They don't need to. Conclusion: if you're in Stewart's and the guy with Covid has N95 mask his covid breath is unfiltered being exhaled into Stewart's (because it was designed for already contaminated environments, it's not filtering your air on the way out) This is mostly true, except it only applies to N95 respirators with valves. Such masks were designed for construction/factory workers or miners, to keep out dust and other particles, but not to prevent infectious particles from leaving the mask. When the wearer inhales, the one-way valve closes so pathogens can't get through, but when the user exhales, the valve opens. In May, the San Francisco Department of Public Health tweeted that N95 masks with valves in the front weren't safe and 'may actually propel your germs further.' Hospitals largely use N95 masks without valves for this reason, and in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. OSHA's guidelines on N95s primarily focus on how they are meant 'to prevent workers from inhaling small particles, including airborne transmissible or aerosolized infectious agents,' and should be required in workplaces where respirators are needed. Surgical Masks The Facebook post argues that wearing a surgical mask makes you a 'walking virus dispenser,' as follows: Surgical Mask: these masks were designed and approved for STERILE environments. The amount of particles and contaminants in the outside and indoor environments where people are CLOGG these masks very Very quickly. The moisture from your breath combined with the clogged mask will render it 'useless' IF you come in contact with Covid and your mask traps it You become a walking virus dispenser. Everytime you put your mask on you are breathing the germs from EVERYWHERE you went. They should be changed or thrown out every '20-30 minutes in a non sterile environment' OSHA guidelines seem to contradict some of these claims, arguing that surgical masks protect workers 'against [potentially infectious] splashes and sprays,' and also 'contain' the wearer's respiratory droplets to protect others. OSHA says these masks should be placed on sick individuals to prevent transmission via droplets. Surgical masks do, however, offer ineffective protection from transmission via airborne particles due to their loose fit. While the post argues that such masks should be thrown out every 20-30 minutes, OSHA simply recommends that they 'should be properly disposed of after use.' Cloth Masks The Facebook post's and letter's claims about cloth masks are mostly false and have been debunked by Snopes before. The author claims: Cloth masks: today three people pointed to their masks as the walked by me entering Lowe's. They said 'ya gotta wear your mask BRO' I said very clearly 'those masks don't work bro, in fact they MAKE you sicker' the 'pshh'd' me. By now hopefully you all know CLOTH masks do not filter anything ... ALL of them offer NO FILTERING whatsoever. As you exhale you are ridding your lungs of contaminants and carbon dioxide. Cloth masks trap this carbon dioxide the best. It actually risks health. The moisture caught in these masks can become mildew ridden over night. Dry coughing, enhanced allergies, sore throat are all symptoms of a micro-mold in your mask. OSHA guidelines already state that cloth masks are ineffective filters against airborne particles. They are worn to protect other people from risk of infection via respiratory droplets. People wearing them are in little to no danger of breathing in unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide. The posts point out the danger of dirty masks, which is why both OSHA and CDC recommend washing cloth masks after use. OSHA also 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work,' contradicting the argument of this entire post. Finally, the author of the Facebook post claimed to be 'OSHA 10&30 certified,' which refers to OSHA's 10-hour and 30-hour training modules about common health and safety hazards in the workplace. We reached out to OSHA, and a representative told us that these courses 'do not include COVID-19 topics,' nor does OSHA 'certify' trainers. Snopes also reached out to the CDC about the photograph of the notice. They directed us to their guidance on cloth masks, and issued the following statement: CDC typically does not issue guidance or recommendations to the public in such a format. CDC's guidance and recommendations are distributed on the agency's website, official social media accounts and through news media. In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

A Facebook post is correct in saying N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks can be dangerous and/or ineffective in protecting against the spread of COVID-19 based on CDC and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

Contradiction

Another day, another viral claim about the effectiveness (or not) of face masks amid the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. A popular Facebook post that had been copied and pasted numerous times in June repeated spurious but familiar claims about masks, this time selectively citing U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) recommendations: In July 2020, a similar post - this time attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - made almost identical claims about N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. This photo circulated online: The lengthy posts focused on three different types of protective masks: N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. We tackle assertions about each one below. N95 Masks According to the posts your unfiltered, potentially infectious breath could harm others if you are breathing through an N95 respirator. N95 masks: are designed for CONTAMINATED environments. That means when you exhale through N95 the design is that you are exhaling into contamination. The exhale from N95 masks are vented to breath straight out without filtration. They don't filter the air on the way out. They don't need to. Conclusion: if you're in Stewart's and the guy with Covid has N95 mask his covid breath is unfiltered being exhaled into Stewart's (because it was designed for already contaminated environments, it's not filtering your air on the way out) This is mostly true, except it only applies to N95 respirators with valves. Such masks were designed for construction/factory workers or miners, to keep out dust and other particles, but not to prevent infectious particles from leaving the mask. When the wearer inhales, the one-way valve closes so pathogens can't get through, but when the user exhales, the valve opens. In May, the San Francisco Department of Public Health tweeted that N95 masks with valves in the front weren't safe and 'may actually propel your germs further.' Hospitals largely use N95 masks without valves for this reason, and in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. OSHA's guidelines on N95s primarily focus on how they are meant 'to prevent workers from inhaling small particles, including airborne transmissible or aerosolized infectious agents,' and should be required in workplaces where respirators are needed. Surgical Masks The Facebook post argues that wearing a surgical mask makes you a 'walking virus dispenser,' as follows: Surgical Mask: these masks were designed and approved for STERILE environments. The amount of particles and contaminants in the outside and indoor environments where people are CLOGG these masks very Very quickly. The moisture from your breath combined with the clogged mask will render it 'useless' IF you come in contact with Covid and your mask traps it You become a walking virus dispenser. Everytime you put your mask on you are breathing the germs from EVERYWHERE you went. They should be changed or thrown out every '20-30 minutes in a non sterile environment' OSHA guidelines seem to contradict some of these claims, arguing that surgical masks protect workers 'against [potentially infectious] splashes and sprays,' and also 'contain' the wearer's respiratory droplets to protect others. OSHA says these masks should be placed on sick individuals to prevent transmission via droplets. Surgical masks do, however, offer ineffective protection from transmission via airborne particles due to their loose fit. While the post argues that such masks should be thrown out every 20-30 minutes, OSHA simply recommends that they 'should be properly disposed of after use.' Cloth Masks The Facebook post's and letter's claims about cloth masks are mostly false and have been debunked by Snopes before. The author claims: Cloth masks: today three people pointed to their masks as the walked by me entering Lowe's. They said 'ya gotta wear your mask BRO' I said very clearly 'those masks don't work bro, in fact they MAKE you sicker' the 'pshh'd' me. By now hopefully you all know CLOTH masks do not filter anything ... ALL of them offer NO FILTERING whatsoever. As you exhale you are ridding your lungs of contaminants and carbon dioxide. Cloth masks trap this carbon dioxide the best. It actually risks health. The moisture caught in these masks can become mildew ridden over night. Dry coughing, enhanced allergies, sore throat are all symptoms of a micro-mold in your mask. OSHA guidelines already state that cloth masks are ineffective filters against airborne particles. They are worn to protect other people from risk of infection via respiratory droplets. People wearing them are in little to no danger of breathing in unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide. The posts point out the danger of dirty masks, which is why both OSHA and CDC recommend washing cloth masks after use. OSHA also 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work,' contradicting the argument of this entire post. Finally, the author of the Facebook post claimed to be 'OSHA 10&30 certified,' which refers to OSHA's 10-hour and 30-hour training modules about common health and safety hazards in the workplace. We reached out to OSHA, and a representative told us that these courses 'do not include COVID-19 topics,' nor does OSHA 'certify' trainers. Snopes also reached out to the CDC about the photograph of the notice. They directed us to their guidance on cloth masks, and issued the following statement: CDC typically does not issue guidance or recommendations to the public in such a format. CDC's guidance and recommendations are distributed on the agency's website, official social media accounts and through news media. In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

A Facebook post is correct in saying N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks can be dangerous and/or ineffective in protecting against the spread of COVID-19 based on CDC and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

Contradiction

Another day, another viral claim about the effectiveness (or not) of face masks amid the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. A popular Facebook post that had been copied and pasted numerous times in June repeated spurious but familiar claims about masks, this time selectively citing U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) recommendations: In July 2020, a similar post - this time attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - made almost identical claims about N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. This photo circulated online: The lengthy posts focused on three different types of protective masks: N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. We tackle assertions about each one below. N95 Masks According to the posts your unfiltered, potentially infectious breath could harm others if you are breathing through an N95 respirator. N95 masks: are designed for CONTAMINATED environments. That means when you exhale through N95 the design is that you are exhaling into contamination. The exhale from N95 masks are vented to breath straight out without filtration. They don't filter the air on the way out. They don't need to. Conclusion: if you're in Stewart's and the guy with Covid has N95 mask his covid breath is unfiltered being exhaled into Stewart's (because it was designed for already contaminated environments, it's not filtering your air on the way out) This is mostly true, except it only applies to N95 respirators with valves. Such masks were designed for construction/factory workers or miners, to keep out dust and other particles, but not to prevent infectious particles from leaving the mask. When the wearer inhales, the one-way valve closes so pathogens can't get through, but when the user exhales, the valve opens. In May, the San Francisco Department of Public Health tweeted that N95 masks with valves in the front weren't safe and 'may actually propel your germs further.' Hospitals largely use N95 masks without valves for this reason, and in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. OSHA's guidelines on N95s primarily focus on how they are meant 'to prevent workers from inhaling small particles, including airborne transmissible or aerosolized infectious agents,' and should be required in workplaces where respirators are needed. Surgical Masks The Facebook post argues that wearing a surgical mask makes you a 'walking virus dispenser,' as follows: Surgical Mask: these masks were designed and approved for STERILE environments. The amount of particles and contaminants in the outside and indoor environments where people are CLOGG these masks very Very quickly. The moisture from your breath combined with the clogged mask will render it 'useless' IF you come in contact with Covid and your mask traps it You become a walking virus dispenser. Everytime you put your mask on you are breathing the germs from EVERYWHERE you went. They should be changed or thrown out every '20-30 minutes in a non sterile environment' OSHA guidelines seem to contradict some of these claims, arguing that surgical masks protect workers 'against [potentially infectious] splashes and sprays,' and also 'contain' the wearer's respiratory droplets to protect others. OSHA says these masks should be placed on sick individuals to prevent transmission via droplets. Surgical masks do, however, offer ineffective protection from transmission via airborne particles due to their loose fit. While the post argues that such masks should be thrown out every 20-30 minutes, OSHA simply recommends that they 'should be properly disposed of after use.' Cloth Masks The Facebook post's and letter's claims about cloth masks are mostly false and have been debunked by Snopes before. The author claims: Cloth masks: today three people pointed to their masks as the walked by me entering Lowe's. They said 'ya gotta wear your mask BRO' I said very clearly 'those masks don't work bro, in fact they MAKE you sicker' the 'pshh'd' me. By now hopefully you all know CLOTH masks do not filter anything ... ALL of them offer NO FILTERING whatsoever. As you exhale you are ridding your lungs of contaminants and carbon dioxide. Cloth masks trap this carbon dioxide the best. It actually risks health. The moisture caught in these masks can become mildew ridden over night. Dry coughing, enhanced allergies, sore throat are all symptoms of a micro-mold in your mask. OSHA guidelines already state that cloth masks are ineffective filters against airborne particles. They are worn to protect other people from risk of infection via respiratory droplets. People wearing them are in little to no danger of breathing in unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide. The posts point out the danger of dirty masks, which is why both OSHA and CDC recommend washing cloth masks after use. OSHA also 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work,' contradicting the argument of this entire post. Finally, the author of the Facebook post claimed to be 'OSHA 10&30 certified,' which refers to OSHA's 10-hour and 30-hour training modules about common health and safety hazards in the workplace. We reached out to OSHA, and a representative told us that these courses 'do not include COVID-19 topics,' nor does OSHA 'certify' trainers. Snopes also reached out to the CDC about the photograph of the notice. They directed us to their guidance on cloth masks, and issued the following statement: CDC typically does not issue guidance or recommendations to the public in such a format. CDC's guidance and recommendations are distributed on the agency's website, official social media accounts and through news media. In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

A Facebook post is correct in saying N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks can be dangerous and/or ineffective in protecting against the spread of COVID-19 based on CDC and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.

Contradiction

Another day, another viral claim about the effectiveness (or not) of face masks amid the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. A popular Facebook post that had been copied and pasted numerous times in June repeated spurious but familiar claims about masks, this time selectively citing U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) recommendations: In July 2020, a similar post - this time attributed to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - made almost identical claims about N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. This photo circulated online: The lengthy posts focused on three different types of protective masks: N95 masks, surgical masks, and cloth masks. We tackle assertions about each one below. N95 Masks According to the posts your unfiltered, potentially infectious breath could harm others if you are breathing through an N95 respirator. N95 masks: are designed for CONTAMINATED environments. That means when you exhale through N95 the design is that you are exhaling into contamination. The exhale from N95 masks are vented to breath straight out without filtration. They don't filter the air on the way out. They don't need to. Conclusion: if you're in Stewart's and the guy with Covid has N95 mask his covid breath is unfiltered being exhaled into Stewart's (because it was designed for already contaminated environments, it's not filtering your air on the way out) This is mostly true, except it only applies to N95 respirators with valves. Such masks were designed for construction/factory workers or miners, to keep out dust and other particles, but not to prevent infectious particles from leaving the mask. When the wearer inhales, the one-way valve closes so pathogens can't get through, but when the user exhales, the valve opens. In May, the San Francisco Department of Public Health tweeted that N95 masks with valves in the front weren't safe and 'may actually propel your germs further.' Hospitals largely use N95 masks without valves for this reason, and in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. OSHA's guidelines on N95s primarily focus on how they are meant 'to prevent workers from inhaling small particles, including airborne transmissible or aerosolized infectious agents,' and should be required in workplaces where respirators are needed. Surgical Masks The Facebook post argues that wearing a surgical mask makes you a 'walking virus dispenser,' as follows: Surgical Mask: these masks were designed and approved for STERILE environments. The amount of particles and contaminants in the outside and indoor environments where people are CLOGG these masks very Very quickly. The moisture from your breath combined with the clogged mask will render it 'useless' IF you come in contact with Covid and your mask traps it You become a walking virus dispenser. Everytime you put your mask on you are breathing the germs from EVERYWHERE you went. They should be changed or thrown out every '20-30 minutes in a non sterile environment' OSHA guidelines seem to contradict some of these claims, arguing that surgical masks protect workers 'against [potentially infectious] splashes and sprays,' and also 'contain' the wearer's respiratory droplets to protect others. OSHA says these masks should be placed on sick individuals to prevent transmission via droplets. Surgical masks do, however, offer ineffective protection from transmission via airborne particles due to their loose fit. While the post argues that such masks should be thrown out every 20-30 minutes, OSHA simply recommends that they 'should be properly disposed of after use.' Cloth Masks The Facebook post's and letter's claims about cloth masks are mostly false and have been debunked by Snopes before. The author claims: Cloth masks: today three people pointed to their masks as the walked by me entering Lowe's. They said 'ya gotta wear your mask BRO' I said very clearly 'those masks don't work bro, in fact they MAKE you sicker' the 'pshh'd' me. By now hopefully you all know CLOTH masks do not filter anything ... ALL of them offer NO FILTERING whatsoever. As you exhale you are ridding your lungs of contaminants and carbon dioxide. Cloth masks trap this carbon dioxide the best. It actually risks health. The moisture caught in these masks can become mildew ridden over night. Dry coughing, enhanced allergies, sore throat are all symptoms of a micro-mold in your mask. OSHA guidelines already state that cloth masks are ineffective filters against airborne particles. They are worn to protect other people from risk of infection via respiratory droplets. People wearing them are in little to no danger of breathing in unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide. The posts point out the danger of dirty masks, which is why both OSHA and CDC recommend washing cloth masks after use. OSHA also 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work,' contradicting the argument of this entire post. Finally, the author of the Facebook post claimed to be 'OSHA 10&30 certified,' which refers to OSHA's 10-hour and 30-hour training modules about common health and safety hazards in the workplace. We reached out to OSHA, and a representative told us that these courses 'do not include COVID-19 topics,' nor does OSHA 'certify' trainers. Snopes also reached out to the CDC about the photograph of the notice. They directed us to their guidance on cloth masks, and issued the following statement: CDC typically does not issue guidance or recommendations to the public in such a format. CDC's guidance and recommendations are distributed on the agency's website, official social media accounts and through news media. In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

In sum, the varied claims in these viral posts (with their dubious origins) for the most part misrepresented information provided by OSHA and the CDC. Scientific wisdom argues that wearing a mask is more effective than doing nothing, and, combined with social distancing and other safety measures, offers protection not only to the wearer but to others. Given these posts' combination of only a few correct facts and largely incorrect conclusions, we rate their various claims as 'Mostly False.'Recent Updates Updated with new information.

Russian military planes performed a flyover during U.S. President Donald Trump's Fourth of July parade in 2019.

Contradiction

U.S. President Donald Trump's Fourth of July parade was both celebrated and criticized for its overt (and expensive) use of military vehicles. The event featured two M1 Abrams tanks, an M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and, according to some confused social media users, a flyover by the Russian military. The idea that Russian planes flew over the Washington Memorial during Trump's parade appears to stem from two items: a satirical article published in The New Yorker and a typo from Trump. On July 3, 2019, humorist Andy Borowitz published a satirical article stating that Trump's parade would feature a flyover by Russian Su-24 fighter planes: Calling it 'incredibly exciting news,' President Donald Trump revealed on Wednesday that his long-planned Fourth of July parade in Washington will include a flyover by Russian Su-24 fighter planes. 'These are beautiful, gleaming Russian planes,' Trump boasted to Tucker Carlson, of Fox News. 'I'm the first American President who's had Russian fighters flying over Washington.' This, of course, is not a genuine news article. 'The Borowitz Report' is a popular satirical column by the humorist. A disclaimer stating 'Satire from The Borowitz Report' preceded this article, and the tags 'Satire' and 'Humor' followed after. Trump may have also contributed to the idea that Russian planes would be involved in the Fourth of July event. On the morning of the parade, Trump posted a message on Twitter that accidentally labeled 'Air Force One,' the name of the United States' presidential plane, as 'Aircraft One,' which is the title of a documentary about Russian President Vladimir Putin's plane: Trump deleted the flyover tweet and replaced it with a message correctly labeling his plane as 'Air Force One.' In sum, the Russian military did not perform a flyover during President Trump's Fourth of July parade. Here's a video showing the U.S. military flyovers during the 'Salute to America' event:

In sum, the Russian military did not perform a flyover during President Trump's Fourth of July parade. Here's a video showing the U.S. military flyovers during the 'Salute to America' event:

Norton Support and Norton Internet Security are sending email renewal offers that notify customers their devices are infected with viruses.

Contradiction

In March 2021, fake email renewals for Norton Internet Security landed in inboxes and spam folders, and warned of devices infected with viruses. An example email had the subject line: 'your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n°020953.' The Fake Email From 'Norton Support' The email that appeared to be from 'Norton-Support2021' notified users that their supposed subscription to Norton Internet Security had expired. The Norton renewal offer was a scam. The headline claimed that recipients' devices had become infected with viruses. However, that seemingly important item didn't appear in the body of the email: EXPIRATION NOTIFICATION Our records indicate that your subscription to Norton™ Internet Security Expired on: ⚠️ 20 Feb 2021 11:11:22 -0500⚠️ Therefore, you are no longer receiving automatic updates that protect you against the latest threats, including viruses, spyware, hackers, and identity thieves. If you are browsing, banking, shopping, checking email or doing anything online, we highly recommend you renew your subscription now and get the new Norton™ Internet Security. Renew Now✔ You will receive a full year of protection for up to 3 household PCs and peace of mind when you're online. Sincerely, The Norton Team This was not a legitimate email from Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security. Investigating the Suspicious Email In an example email we reviewed, all links in the message pointed to a website hosted on a Brazilian domain. The 'unsubscribe' link at the bottom of the message led to the scam as well. If readers receive a suspicious email that claims to be from Norton, desktop users can safely hover over links (but not click on them) in order to see where they lead. If they don't go to an official Norton website, such as 'norton.com,' do not click the link. Also, the email address the message came from appeared to begin with 'Norton-Support2021@' and end with a long string of random letters. The email address did not end in '@norton.com' or anything similar. Advice From Norton The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: norton@nortonlifelock.com, norton@secure.norton.com, ems@norton.com, lifelock@secure.norton.com, and information@mail.nortonstore.hk. It's true that Norton may send renewal offers. However, such offers will never arrive with completely lowercase subject lines. Further, there was no indication that Norton notifies customers 'your device has been infected with viruses' in renewal email offers. 'The URLs in our emails point to the server at: https://secure.norton.com. Make sure that the URLs begin with https:// and has a norton.com or lifelock.com domain.' Norton users who run the company's apps will potentially receive official emails from noreply@norton.com, no-reply@nortonlifelock.com, NortonAccount@norton.com, norton@nortonlifelock.com, and management@norton.com. Other email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page. Virus Hoaxes and Threats Are Nothing New We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax. Twenty-four years later, the Norton emails being received by readers were not a hoax. We recommend proceeding with caution when reviewing potentially harmful messages. Hovering over links to see where they lead is safe, but clicking on them may not be. In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided.

In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided.

Credible sources said U.S. President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke martial law before President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021.

Contradiction

As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare 'martial law' - the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently - and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days - we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government 'are going to be brought down' in some 'house cleaning' and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. 'It's the president's last effort,' McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. 'We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country.' In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases - people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities - such as those provided in the Insurrection Act - give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim 'False.'

Credible sources said U.S. President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke martial law before President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021.

Contradiction

As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare 'martial law' - the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently - and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days - we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government 'are going to be brought down' in some 'house cleaning' and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. 'It's the president's last effort,' McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. 'We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country.' In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases - people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities - such as those provided in the Insurrection Act - give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim 'False.'

A photograph shows President Obama, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Melinda Gates at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2015.

Contradiction

In July 2020, a photograph supposedly showing then-U.S. President Barack Obama, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Melinda Gates at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2015 started to circulate on social media: This is a genuine photograph of Obama and Fauci - but it was not taken in Wuhan, China, in 2015. Also, the woman in the red shirt is not Melinda Gates. This photograph was taken in December 2014 at the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and shows Obama and Fauci with U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and Chief of the Biodefense Research Section Nancy Sullivan. The photograph is available via the NIH Director's blog, where it is accompanied by the following caption: 'Dr. Nancy Sullivan of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) discussing Ebola research with President Barack Obama as NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell look on.' Dr. Francis Collins went on to write in the blog: Today, we had the great honor of welcoming President Barack Obama to the campus of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD-to see first-hand the progress that biomedical research is making against Ebola virus disease. The President toured the NIH Vaccine Research Center, and met with scientists who are working hard to develop ways to combat this deadly virus that continues to devastate West Africa. And, in a speech before a packed auditorium at the NIH Clinical Center, the President praised the contributions of NIH staff. He also emphasized the need for emergency Congressional authorization of resources to ensure that our nation's research and public health efforts against Ebola will lead as quickly as possible to an end to this devastating outbreak. A number of similar images from this visit are available via Getty Images. The text accompanying this viral image also full of misinformation. We addressed this alleged grant to a laboratory in Wuhan, China, more in depth in this article. In short, the National Institutes of Health awarded the New York-based environmental health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance a $3.7 million grant to fund research into how bat coronavirus could emerge and spread to human populations. A portion of that money - about $600,000 - went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Although this grant was initially awarded under the Obama administration in 2014, it was renewed in 2019 under the Trump administration. In April 2020, as coronavirus spread across the United States, the Trump administration canceled this funding for coronavirus research.

In short, the National Institutes of Health awarded the New York-based environmental health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance a $3.7 million grant to fund research into how bat coronavirus could emerge and spread to human populations. A portion of that money - about $600,000 - went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Although this grant was initially awarded under the Obama administration in 2014, it was renewed in 2019 under the Trump administration. In April 2020, as coronavirus spread across the United States, the Trump administration canceled this funding for coronavirus research.

Donald Trump tweeted that his 'grandparents didn't come to America' to see the country taken over by immigrants.

Contradiction

In December 2015, Facebook users began sharing a quote, purportedly from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, about his immigrant grandparents and his anti-immigration stance: While it's true that Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump emigrated from Germany to the United States, and that Trump the candidate has made immigration reform a central plank of his platform the above-displayed quote was not uttered by Donald Trump. The quote first appeared on the twitter account @McDonaldJTrump on 6 September 2015: This tweet issued from a Donald Trump parody account and not Trump's real Twitter account, as is clearly stated in the bio associated with the former: I will make America great again because I myself am great. The J in my name does NOT stand for Joke. Also I have really great hair. I'm not Donald J. Trump.

In December 2015, Facebook users began sharing a quote, purportedly from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, about his immigrant grandparents and his anti-immigration stance: While it's true that Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump emigrated from Germany to the United States, and that Trump the candidate has made immigration reform a central plank of his platform the above-displayed quote was not uttered by Donald Trump. The quote first appeared on the twitter account @McDonaldJTrump on 6 September 2015: This tweet issued from a Donald Trump parody account and not Trump's real Twitter account, as is clearly stated in the bio associated with the former: I will make America great again because I myself am great. The J in my name does NOT stand for Joke. Also I have really great hair. I'm not Donald J. Trump.

A video shows a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, involving doctors armed with weapons, gunshots to deter people from leaving a new coronavirus quarantine, and a woman who was shot dead after she attempted to break through a roadblock.

Contradiction

WARNING: This article contains a video that shows a recently deceased person. As such, it may not be suitable for all viewers. In February 2020, a video supposedly showing a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, was widely shared on social media with the suggestion that it was related to the 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus. Actor James Woods posted the video to his Twitter account, asking if anyone knew what was actually going on in this footage: Although the video attached to Woods' tweet was later removed, at the time of this writing it was still viewable on other Twitter posts. Meanwhile over 25,000 killed they have started shooting down all the people with the virus in China... this is so sad 🥺🥺🥺 pic.twitter.com/IfVWMUuSw6 - Rangoli Chandel (@Rangoli_A) February 13, 2020 While the video was widely shared as if it showed a singular incident, it was actually made up of three individual and unrelated clips, which we evaluate separately below. Clip 1 Are these armed doctors? Rating: Miscaptioned. The first clip in this video was widely shared along with the unfounded claim that it showed medical professionals armed with weapons. The implication here appears to be that doctors are killing patients as opposed to treating them. However, this video appears to show police officers dressed in medical gear, not medical professionals. While we have not been able to find the source of this video, Getty Images does have a few photographs of police officers in Wuhan, China, wearing similar protective clothing. Furthermore, the word 'police' can be briefly seen on the hood of this car. Clip 2 Are these gunshots being fired to deter people from leaving quarantine? Rating: Miscaptioned. The second clip in this video was widely shared as if it showed doctors treating coronavirus patients on the street as gunshots could be heard in the background. One Twitter user wrote: New video from the quarantine zone in China. Medical personal checking #coronavirus patients. There're multiple reports from the ground of people dying in their homes. The gunshots you hear in the background is to stop those who want to escape from off-road terrain. There was no evidence to support speculation that the blasts in the background were gunshots, that these gunshots were being fired to prevent people from fleeing the area, or that people laying in the streets are coronavirus victims. Nobody can be seen on screen holding a gun, and the people shown in the video do not seem particularly disturbed by the supposed 'gunfire.' This video also started circulating on or around Jan. 25, 2020, when China was celebrating Lunar New Year. One early posting of this footage noted that the explosions in the background were fireworks from the holiday celebration. 武汉周圍很多農村人，被感染后进不了医院，只有醫护上门，也無法確診，最終死在家里！這些死亡病例肯定是不会統計进官方肺炎死亡人数的！背景中是欢庆新年的烟花爆空，而他們死得绝望無辜！歷史也許永遠不会有真相！ pic.twitter.com/bw5co9vuk3 - 财经冷眼 (@charles984681) January 26, 2020 Clip 3 Was a woman shot dead after attempting to break through a coronavirus blockade? Rating: Miscaptioned. The final clip in this video supposedly shows a woman who was 'shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus.' At Wuzu Town, Huangmei County in #Hubei , a woman was said to have shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus . 湖北省黄梅县五祖镇 , 据说这名妇女因强闯 #武汉肺炎 封锁线被警察打死。#CoronavirusOutbreak 何不 #全民自救 #全民互救 ？ pic.twitter.com/HqEvzSknz2 - 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 4, 2020 This is a genuine video. However, it is not related to the coronavirus nor to a roadblock. This video actually shows a person who was killed in a motorbike accident. Remnants of this accident can be seen in the video. At one point, a busted up sidewalk can be seen near the victim. An overturned scooter can also be seen in the background. The French news outlet Les Observateurs France 24 obtained a slightly longer version of this video that more clearly shows the crashed motorbike. Les Observateurs also obtained a statement from the director of the Wuzu police station who said that this was a 'one-vehicle road accident': 'In the afternoon of January 29, a one-sided [one-vehicle] road accident occurred in the city of Wuzu. The person involved was driving a scooter and, due to bad traffic maneuver, she shifted to the side of the road, collided with the stones along the ledge and fell on the back of the head, and unfortunately died. The driver was solely responsible. Local police and health center workers quickly arrived to handle the accident.' In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

A video shows a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, involving doctors armed with weapons, gunshots to deter people from leaving a new coronavirus quarantine, and a woman who was shot dead after she attempted to break through a roadblock.

Contradiction

WARNING: This article contains a video that shows a recently deceased person. As such, it may not be suitable for all viewers. In February 2020, a video supposedly showing a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, was widely shared on social media with the suggestion that it was related to the 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus. Actor James Woods posted the video to his Twitter account, asking if anyone knew what was actually going on in this footage: Although the video attached to Woods' tweet was later removed, at the time of this writing it was still viewable on other Twitter posts. Meanwhile over 25,000 killed they have started shooting down all the people with the virus in China... this is so sad 🥺🥺🥺 pic.twitter.com/IfVWMUuSw6 - Rangoli Chandel (@Rangoli_A) February 13, 2020 While the video was widely shared as if it showed a singular incident, it was actually made up of three individual and unrelated clips, which we evaluate separately below. Clip 1 Are these armed doctors? Rating: Miscaptioned. The first clip in this video was widely shared along with the unfounded claim that it showed medical professionals armed with weapons. The implication here appears to be that doctors are killing patients as opposed to treating them. However, this video appears to show police officers dressed in medical gear, not medical professionals. While we have not been able to find the source of this video, Getty Images does have a few photographs of police officers in Wuhan, China, wearing similar protective clothing. Furthermore, the word 'police' can be briefly seen on the hood of this car. Clip 2 Are these gunshots being fired to deter people from leaving quarantine? Rating: Miscaptioned. The second clip in this video was widely shared as if it showed doctors treating coronavirus patients on the street as gunshots could be heard in the background. One Twitter user wrote: New video from the quarantine zone in China. Medical personal checking #coronavirus patients. There're multiple reports from the ground of people dying in their homes. The gunshots you hear in the background is to stop those who want to escape from off-road terrain. There was no evidence to support speculation that the blasts in the background were gunshots, that these gunshots were being fired to prevent people from fleeing the area, or that people laying in the streets are coronavirus victims. Nobody can be seen on screen holding a gun, and the people shown in the video do not seem particularly disturbed by the supposed 'gunfire.' This video also started circulating on or around Jan. 25, 2020, when China was celebrating Lunar New Year. One early posting of this footage noted that the explosions in the background were fireworks from the holiday celebration. 武汉周圍很多農村人，被感染后进不了医院，只有醫护上门，也無法確診，最終死在家里！這些死亡病例肯定是不会統計进官方肺炎死亡人数的！背景中是欢庆新年的烟花爆空，而他們死得绝望無辜！歷史也許永遠不会有真相！ pic.twitter.com/bw5co9vuk3 - 财经冷眼 (@charles984681) January 26, 2020 Clip 3 Was a woman shot dead after attempting to break through a coronavirus blockade? Rating: Miscaptioned. The final clip in this video supposedly shows a woman who was 'shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus.' At Wuzu Town, Huangmei County in #Hubei , a woman was said to have shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus . 湖北省黄梅县五祖镇 , 据说这名妇女因强闯 #武汉肺炎 封锁线被警察打死。#CoronavirusOutbreak 何不 #全民自救 #全民互救 ？ pic.twitter.com/HqEvzSknz2 - 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 4, 2020 This is a genuine video. However, it is not related to the coronavirus nor to a roadblock. This video actually shows a person who was killed in a motorbike accident. Remnants of this accident can be seen in the video. At one point, a busted up sidewalk can be seen near the victim. An overturned scooter can also be seen in the background. The French news outlet Les Observateurs France 24 obtained a slightly longer version of this video that more clearly shows the crashed motorbike. Les Observateurs also obtained a statement from the director of the Wuzu police station who said that this was a 'one-vehicle road accident': 'In the afternoon of January 29, a one-sided [one-vehicle] road accident occurred in the city of Wuzu. The person involved was driving a scooter and, due to bad traffic maneuver, she shifted to the side of the road, collided with the stones along the ledge and fell on the back of the head, and unfortunately died. The driver was solely responsible. Local police and health center workers quickly arrived to handle the accident.' In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

A video shows a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, involving doctors armed with weapons, gunshots to deter people from leaving a new coronavirus quarantine, and a woman who was shot dead after she attempted to break through a roadblock.

Contradiction

WARNING: This article contains a video that shows a recently deceased person. As such, it may not be suitable for all viewers. In February 2020, a video supposedly showing a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, was widely shared on social media with the suggestion that it was related to the 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus. Actor James Woods posted the video to his Twitter account, asking if anyone knew what was actually going on in this footage: Although the video attached to Woods' tweet was later removed, at the time of this writing it was still viewable on other Twitter posts. Meanwhile over 25,000 killed they have started shooting down all the people with the virus in China... this is so sad 🥺🥺🥺 pic.twitter.com/IfVWMUuSw6 - Rangoli Chandel (@Rangoli_A) February 13, 2020 While the video was widely shared as if it showed a singular incident, it was actually made up of three individual and unrelated clips, which we evaluate separately below. Clip 1 Are these armed doctors? Rating: Miscaptioned. The first clip in this video was widely shared along with the unfounded claim that it showed medical professionals armed with weapons. The implication here appears to be that doctors are killing patients as opposed to treating them. However, this video appears to show police officers dressed in medical gear, not medical professionals. While we have not been able to find the source of this video, Getty Images does have a few photographs of police officers in Wuhan, China, wearing similar protective clothing. Furthermore, the word 'police' can be briefly seen on the hood of this car. Clip 2 Are these gunshots being fired to deter people from leaving quarantine? Rating: Miscaptioned. The second clip in this video was widely shared as if it showed doctors treating coronavirus patients on the street as gunshots could be heard in the background. One Twitter user wrote: New video from the quarantine zone in China. Medical personal checking #coronavirus patients. There're multiple reports from the ground of people dying in their homes. The gunshots you hear in the background is to stop those who want to escape from off-road terrain. There was no evidence to support speculation that the blasts in the background were gunshots, that these gunshots were being fired to prevent people from fleeing the area, or that people laying in the streets are coronavirus victims. Nobody can be seen on screen holding a gun, and the people shown in the video do not seem particularly disturbed by the supposed 'gunfire.' This video also started circulating on or around Jan. 25, 2020, when China was celebrating Lunar New Year. One early posting of this footage noted that the explosions in the background were fireworks from the holiday celebration. 武汉周圍很多農村人，被感染后进不了医院，只有醫护上门，也無法確診，最終死在家里！這些死亡病例肯定是不会統計进官方肺炎死亡人数的！背景中是欢庆新年的烟花爆空，而他們死得绝望無辜！歷史也許永遠不会有真相！ pic.twitter.com/bw5co9vuk3 - 财经冷眼 (@charles984681) January 26, 2020 Clip 3 Was a woman shot dead after attempting to break through a coronavirus blockade? Rating: Miscaptioned. The final clip in this video supposedly shows a woman who was 'shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus.' At Wuzu Town, Huangmei County in #Hubei , a woman was said to have shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus . 湖北省黄梅县五祖镇 , 据说这名妇女因强闯 #武汉肺炎 封锁线被警察打死。#CoronavirusOutbreak 何不 #全民自救 #全民互救 ？ pic.twitter.com/HqEvzSknz2 - 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 4, 2020 This is a genuine video. However, it is not related to the coronavirus nor to a roadblock. This video actually shows a person who was killed in a motorbike accident. Remnants of this accident can be seen in the video. At one point, a busted up sidewalk can be seen near the victim. An overturned scooter can also be seen in the background. The French news outlet Les Observateurs France 24 obtained a slightly longer version of this video that more clearly shows the crashed motorbike. Les Observateurs also obtained a statement from the director of the Wuzu police station who said that this was a 'one-vehicle road accident': 'In the afternoon of January 29, a one-sided [one-vehicle] road accident occurred in the city of Wuzu. The person involved was driving a scooter and, due to bad traffic maneuver, she shifted to the side of the road, collided with the stones along the ledge and fell on the back of the head, and unfortunately died. The driver was solely responsible. Local police and health center workers quickly arrived to handle the accident.' In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

A video shows a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, involving doctors armed with weapons, gunshots to deter people from leaving a new coronavirus quarantine, and a woman who was shot dead after she attempted to break through a roadblock.

Contradiction

WARNING: This article contains a video that shows a recently deceased person. As such, it may not be suitable for all viewers. In February 2020, a video supposedly showing a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, was widely shared on social media with the suggestion that it was related to the 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus. Actor James Woods posted the video to his Twitter account, asking if anyone knew what was actually going on in this footage: Although the video attached to Woods' tweet was later removed, at the time of this writing it was still viewable on other Twitter posts. Meanwhile over 25,000 killed they have started shooting down all the people with the virus in China... this is so sad 🥺🥺🥺 pic.twitter.com/IfVWMUuSw6 - Rangoli Chandel (@Rangoli_A) February 13, 2020 While the video was widely shared as if it showed a singular incident, it was actually made up of three individual and unrelated clips, which we evaluate separately below. Clip 1 Are these armed doctors? Rating: Miscaptioned. The first clip in this video was widely shared along with the unfounded claim that it showed medical professionals armed with weapons. The implication here appears to be that doctors are killing patients as opposed to treating them. However, this video appears to show police officers dressed in medical gear, not medical professionals. While we have not been able to find the source of this video, Getty Images does have a few photographs of police officers in Wuhan, China, wearing similar protective clothing. Furthermore, the word 'police' can be briefly seen on the hood of this car. Clip 2 Are these gunshots being fired to deter people from leaving quarantine? Rating: Miscaptioned. The second clip in this video was widely shared as if it showed doctors treating coronavirus patients on the street as gunshots could be heard in the background. One Twitter user wrote: New video from the quarantine zone in China. Medical personal checking #coronavirus patients. There're multiple reports from the ground of people dying in their homes. The gunshots you hear in the background is to stop those who want to escape from off-road terrain. There was no evidence to support speculation that the blasts in the background were gunshots, that these gunshots were being fired to prevent people from fleeing the area, or that people laying in the streets are coronavirus victims. Nobody can be seen on screen holding a gun, and the people shown in the video do not seem particularly disturbed by the supposed 'gunfire.' This video also started circulating on or around Jan. 25, 2020, when China was celebrating Lunar New Year. One early posting of this footage noted that the explosions in the background were fireworks from the holiday celebration. 武汉周圍很多農村人，被感染后进不了医院，只有醫护上门，也無法確診，最終死在家里！這些死亡病例肯定是不会統計进官方肺炎死亡人数的！背景中是欢庆新年的烟花爆空，而他們死得绝望無辜！歷史也許永遠不会有真相！ pic.twitter.com/bw5co9vuk3 - 财经冷眼 (@charles984681) January 26, 2020 Clip 3 Was a woman shot dead after attempting to break through a coronavirus blockade? Rating: Miscaptioned. The final clip in this video supposedly shows a woman who was 'shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus.' At Wuzu Town, Huangmei County in #Hubei , a woman was said to have shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus . 湖北省黄梅县五祖镇 , 据说这名妇女因强闯 #武汉肺炎 封锁线被警察打死。#CoronavirusOutbreak 何不 #全民自救 #全民互救 ？ pic.twitter.com/HqEvzSknz2 - 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 4, 2020 This is a genuine video. However, it is not related to the coronavirus nor to a roadblock. This video actually shows a person who was killed in a motorbike accident. Remnants of this accident can be seen in the video. At one point, a busted up sidewalk can be seen near the victim. An overturned scooter can also be seen in the background. The French news outlet Les Observateurs France 24 obtained a slightly longer version of this video that more clearly shows the crashed motorbike. Les Observateurs also obtained a statement from the director of the Wuzu police station who said that this was a 'one-vehicle road accident': 'In the afternoon of January 29, a one-sided [one-vehicle] road accident occurred in the city of Wuzu. The person involved was driving a scooter and, due to bad traffic maneuver, she shifted to the side of the road, collided with the stones along the ledge and fell on the back of the head, and unfortunately died. The driver was solely responsible. Local police and health center workers quickly arrived to handle the accident.' In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

A video shows a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, involving doctors armed with weapons, gunshots to deter people from leaving a new coronavirus quarantine, and a woman who was shot dead after she attempted to break through a roadblock.

Contradiction

WARNING: This article contains a video that shows a recently deceased person. As such, it may not be suitable for all viewers. In February 2020, a video supposedly showing a chaotic scene in Wuhan, China, was widely shared on social media with the suggestion that it was related to the 2020 outbreak of a new coronavirus. Actor James Woods posted the video to his Twitter account, asking if anyone knew what was actually going on in this footage: Although the video attached to Woods' tweet was later removed, at the time of this writing it was still viewable on other Twitter posts. Meanwhile over 25,000 killed they have started shooting down all the people with the virus in China... this is so sad 🥺🥺🥺 pic.twitter.com/IfVWMUuSw6 - Rangoli Chandel (@Rangoli_A) February 13, 2020 While the video was widely shared as if it showed a singular incident, it was actually made up of three individual and unrelated clips, which we evaluate separately below. Clip 1 Are these armed doctors? Rating: Miscaptioned. The first clip in this video was widely shared along with the unfounded claim that it showed medical professionals armed with weapons. The implication here appears to be that doctors are killing patients as opposed to treating them. However, this video appears to show police officers dressed in medical gear, not medical professionals. While we have not been able to find the source of this video, Getty Images does have a few photographs of police officers in Wuhan, China, wearing similar protective clothing. Furthermore, the word 'police' can be briefly seen on the hood of this car. Clip 2 Are these gunshots being fired to deter people from leaving quarantine? Rating: Miscaptioned. The second clip in this video was widely shared as if it showed doctors treating coronavirus patients on the street as gunshots could be heard in the background. One Twitter user wrote: New video from the quarantine zone in China. Medical personal checking #coronavirus patients. There're multiple reports from the ground of people dying in their homes. The gunshots you hear in the background is to stop those who want to escape from off-road terrain. There was no evidence to support speculation that the blasts in the background were gunshots, that these gunshots were being fired to prevent people from fleeing the area, or that people laying in the streets are coronavirus victims. Nobody can be seen on screen holding a gun, and the people shown in the video do not seem particularly disturbed by the supposed 'gunfire.' This video also started circulating on or around Jan. 25, 2020, when China was celebrating Lunar New Year. One early posting of this footage noted that the explosions in the background were fireworks from the holiday celebration. 武汉周圍很多農村人，被感染后进不了医院，只有醫护上门，也無法確診，最終死在家里！這些死亡病例肯定是不会統計进官方肺炎死亡人数的！背景中是欢庆新年的烟花爆空，而他們死得绝望無辜！歷史也許永遠不会有真相！ pic.twitter.com/bw5co9vuk3 - 财经冷眼 (@charles984681) January 26, 2020 Clip 3 Was a woman shot dead after attempting to break through a coronavirus blockade? Rating: Miscaptioned. The final clip in this video supposedly shows a woman who was 'shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus.' At Wuzu Town, Huangmei County in #Hubei , a woman was said to have shot dead after she attempted to break the blockade set up to contain #coronavirus . 湖北省黄梅县五祖镇 , 据说这名妇女因强闯 #武汉肺炎 封锁线被警察打死。#CoronavirusOutbreak 何不 #全民自救 #全民互救 ？ pic.twitter.com/HqEvzSknz2 - 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 4, 2020 This is a genuine video. However, it is not related to the coronavirus nor to a roadblock. This video actually shows a person who was killed in a motorbike accident. Remnants of this accident can be seen in the video. At one point, a busted up sidewalk can be seen near the victim. An overturned scooter can also be seen in the background. The French news outlet Les Observateurs France 24 obtained a slightly longer version of this video that more clearly shows the crashed motorbike. Les Observateurs also obtained a statement from the director of the Wuzu police station who said that this was a 'one-vehicle road accident': 'In the afternoon of January 29, a one-sided [one-vehicle] road accident occurred in the city of Wuzu. The person involved was driving a scooter and, due to bad traffic maneuver, she shifted to the side of the road, collided with the stones along the ledge and fell on the back of the head, and unfortunately died. The driver was solely responsible. Local police and health center workers quickly arrived to handle the accident.' In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

In Summary Although Wuhan, China, and surrounding areas were certainly dealing with an outbreak of coronavirus in early 2020, and while some of the photographs and videos coming out of China are undoubtedly real, many clips have been captioned in a way to capitalize on the fear of this potential pandemic. When we examined another set of videos that supposedly showed people collapsing in the street as a result of contracting coronavirus, for instance, we found that these claims were based purely on the spectator's assumptions and not any first-hand knowledge. The World Health Organization said that it would be 'atypical' for people to collapse in this manner from the virus. Find more information on coronavirus here.

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden stood in front of a Nazi-inspired flag while giving a speech to farmworkers.

Contradiction

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden visited the Forty Acres in California, a vaccination site and a National Historic Landmark that became the first headquarters of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), a labor union for farm workers across the country. While there, she urged farmworkers to get vaccinated as well. That day, she was also honoring César Chávez, a UFW leader and civil rights activist who died in 1993. During her speech, Biden stood in front of a flag that many on social media claimed was Nazi-inspired. This, we learned, was false. Jill Biden spoke in front of a Nazi-inspired flag yesterday pic.twitter.com/cJEyuZFxJp - Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 1, 2021 Nothing to see here. Just the First Lady speaking in front of a Nazi inspired flag. This administration is incompetent to the point of buffoonery. pic.twitter.com/5tj0wWziv5 - Richard A Harrison (@RAHarrisonPA) April 1, 2021 Yesterday Jill Biden struggled to speech basic Spanish while standing in front of a Nazi flag. Melania Trump speaks 5 languages fluently. - JD Sharp (@imjdsharp) April 1, 2021 The flag behind Biden was the UFW's official flag, which was designed in 1962 by Richard Chávez, César Chávez' younger brother. The flag depicts an eagle and was inspired by Aztec imagery. According to the UFW website: In 1962, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and others founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers. That same year, Richard Chavez designed the UFW Eagle. Cesar told the story of the birth of the eagle. He asked Richard to design the flag, but Richard had problems making an eagle that he liked. Finally, he sketched one on a piece of brown wrapping paper. He then squared off the wing edges so that the eagle would be easier for union members to draw on the handmade red flags that would give courage to the farm workers with their own powerful symbol. Cesar made reference to the flag by stating, 'A symbol is an important thing. That is why we chose an Aztec eagle. It gives pride...When people see it they know it means dignity.' Since that time, the UFW Eagle Mark has become a highly recognizable icon in the union's boycott efforts, legislative, proposition campaigns, and a victorious symbol of its successful contract negotiations. A Smithsonian magazine article by Miriam Chawel, author of 'The Union of Their Dreams,' about the history of the farm workers' movement did point out that César Chávez had 'researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white.' He then 'picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.' However, another account in 1998's 'The Fight in the Fields' by Susan Ferriss and Ricardo Sandoval, which was a companion book to the PBS documentary of the same name, described a moment that indicated evoking Nazi imagery was not Richard Chávez' intention. The book describes how he came up with the design for the eagle and how César Chávez chose the colors, 'white for hope, black for the plight of the workers, and red for the sacrifice that would be required of them.' The book described the unveiling of their banner at the first National Farm Worker's Association (which would later become the UFW) conference: It was time to unveil the association's banner: a square-edged black eagle in a white circle against a red background. Manuel pulled a cord, tearing aside a sheet of paper that had been covering the flag-and gasps rippled through the crowd. Some people immediately left in protest because they thought the flag looked 'Communist.' Some thought the eagle design was inspired, half in jest, by the label on Gallo's cheapest wine, Thunderbird. To Richard's astonishment, still others thought the colors echoed that of the Nazi flag of the Third Reich. But experts have largely argued that the flag's purported association with the Nazi movement was ridiculous. Lauren Araiza, an associate professor at Denison University, told The Associated Press that in addition to red and black being eye-catching colors, the tone of red used in the flag was inexpensive for printers. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, a professor of history at Fairfield University who specializes in the history of Nazi Germany, also told The Associated Press that the Nazi-inspiration claims were incorrect. 'One source of subtle confusion may be the fact that many Nazi flags featured an eagle with a swastika, the latter being a very geometric shape; the UFW flag also features a very geometrically rendered Aztec-style eagle that could evoke the geometric aspects of a swastika,' Rosenfeld said. 'But of course, there's no swastika on the UFW whatsoever.' In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'

In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden stood in front of a Nazi-inspired flag while giving a speech to farmworkers.

Contradiction

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden visited the Forty Acres in California, a vaccination site and a National Historic Landmark that became the first headquarters of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), a labor union for farm workers across the country. While there, she urged farmworkers to get vaccinated as well. That day, she was also honoring César Chávez, a UFW leader and civil rights activist who died in 1993. During her speech, Biden stood in front of a flag that many on social media claimed was Nazi-inspired. This, we learned, was false. Jill Biden spoke in front of a Nazi-inspired flag yesterday pic.twitter.com/cJEyuZFxJp - Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 1, 2021 Nothing to see here. Just the First Lady speaking in front of a Nazi inspired flag. This administration is incompetent to the point of buffoonery. pic.twitter.com/5tj0wWziv5 - Richard A Harrison (@RAHarrisonPA) April 1, 2021 Yesterday Jill Biden struggled to speech basic Spanish while standing in front of a Nazi flag. Melania Trump speaks 5 languages fluently. - JD Sharp (@imjdsharp) April 1, 2021 The flag behind Biden was the UFW's official flag, which was designed in 1962 by Richard Chávez, César Chávez' younger brother. The flag depicts an eagle and was inspired by Aztec imagery. According to the UFW website: In 1962, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and others founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers. That same year, Richard Chavez designed the UFW Eagle. Cesar told the story of the birth of the eagle. He asked Richard to design the flag, but Richard had problems making an eagle that he liked. Finally, he sketched one on a piece of brown wrapping paper. He then squared off the wing edges so that the eagle would be easier for union members to draw on the handmade red flags that would give courage to the farm workers with their own powerful symbol. Cesar made reference to the flag by stating, 'A symbol is an important thing. That is why we chose an Aztec eagle. It gives pride...When people see it they know it means dignity.' Since that time, the UFW Eagle Mark has become a highly recognizable icon in the union's boycott efforts, legislative, proposition campaigns, and a victorious symbol of its successful contract negotiations. A Smithsonian magazine article by Miriam Chawel, author of 'The Union of Their Dreams,' about the history of the farm workers' movement did point out that César Chávez had 'researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white.' He then 'picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.' However, another account in 1998's 'The Fight in the Fields' by Susan Ferriss and Ricardo Sandoval, which was a companion book to the PBS documentary of the same name, described a moment that indicated evoking Nazi imagery was not Richard Chávez' intention. The book describes how he came up with the design for the eagle and how César Chávez chose the colors, 'white for hope, black for the plight of the workers, and red for the sacrifice that would be required of them.' The book described the unveiling of their banner at the first National Farm Worker's Association (which would later become the UFW) conference: It was time to unveil the association's banner: a square-edged black eagle in a white circle against a red background. Manuel pulled a cord, tearing aside a sheet of paper that had been covering the flag-and gasps rippled through the crowd. Some people immediately left in protest because they thought the flag looked 'Communist.' Some thought the eagle design was inspired, half in jest, by the label on Gallo's cheapest wine, Thunderbird. To Richard's astonishment, still others thought the colors echoed that of the Nazi flag of the Third Reich. But experts have largely argued that the flag's purported association with the Nazi movement was ridiculous. Lauren Araiza, an associate professor at Denison University, told The Associated Press that in addition to red and black being eye-catching colors, the tone of red used in the flag was inexpensive for printers. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, a professor of history at Fairfield University who specializes in the history of Nazi Germany, also told The Associated Press that the Nazi-inspiration claims were incorrect. 'One source of subtle confusion may be the fact that many Nazi flags featured an eagle with a swastika, the latter being a very geometric shape; the UFW flag also features a very geometrically rendered Aztec-style eagle that could evoke the geometric aspects of a swastika,' Rosenfeld said. 'But of course, there's no swastika on the UFW whatsoever.' In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'

In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden stood in front of a Nazi-inspired flag while giving a speech to farmworkers.

Contradiction

On March 31, 2021, first lady Jill Biden visited the Forty Acres in California, a vaccination site and a National Historic Landmark that became the first headquarters of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), a labor union for farm workers across the country. While there, she urged farmworkers to get vaccinated as well. That day, she was also honoring César Chávez, a UFW leader and civil rights activist who died in 1993. During her speech, Biden stood in front of a flag that many on social media claimed was Nazi-inspired. This, we learned, was false. Jill Biden spoke in front of a Nazi-inspired flag yesterday pic.twitter.com/cJEyuZFxJp - Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) April 1, 2021 Nothing to see here. Just the First Lady speaking in front of a Nazi inspired flag. This administration is incompetent to the point of buffoonery. pic.twitter.com/5tj0wWziv5 - Richard A Harrison (@RAHarrisonPA) April 1, 2021 Yesterday Jill Biden struggled to speech basic Spanish while standing in front of a Nazi flag. Melania Trump speaks 5 languages fluently. - JD Sharp (@imjdsharp) April 1, 2021 The flag behind Biden was the UFW's official flag, which was designed in 1962 by Richard Chávez, César Chávez' younger brother. The flag depicts an eagle and was inspired by Aztec imagery. According to the UFW website: In 1962, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and others founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers. That same year, Richard Chavez designed the UFW Eagle. Cesar told the story of the birth of the eagle. He asked Richard to design the flag, but Richard had problems making an eagle that he liked. Finally, he sketched one on a piece of brown wrapping paper. He then squared off the wing edges so that the eagle would be easier for union members to draw on the handmade red flags that would give courage to the farm workers with their own powerful symbol. Cesar made reference to the flag by stating, 'A symbol is an important thing. That is why we chose an Aztec eagle. It gives pride...When people see it they know it means dignity.' Since that time, the UFW Eagle Mark has become a highly recognizable icon in the union's boycott efforts, legislative, proposition campaigns, and a victorious symbol of its successful contract negotiations. A Smithsonian magazine article by Miriam Chawel, author of 'The Union of Their Dreams,' about the history of the farm workers' movement did point out that César Chávez had 'researched emblems, including cigarette boxes and Nazi flags, and concluded that the most potent color combination was red, black and white.' He then 'picked the eagle and directed his brother to draw the bird so simply that anyone could easily replicate the symbol.' However, another account in 1998's 'The Fight in the Fields' by Susan Ferriss and Ricardo Sandoval, which was a companion book to the PBS documentary of the same name, described a moment that indicated evoking Nazi imagery was not Richard Chávez' intention. The book describes how he came up with the design for the eagle and how César Chávez chose the colors, 'white for hope, black for the plight of the workers, and red for the sacrifice that would be required of them.' The book described the unveiling of their banner at the first National Farm Worker's Association (which would later become the UFW) conference: It was time to unveil the association's banner: a square-edged black eagle in a white circle against a red background. Manuel pulled a cord, tearing aside a sheet of paper that had been covering the flag-and gasps rippled through the crowd. Some people immediately left in protest because they thought the flag looked 'Communist.' Some thought the eagle design was inspired, half in jest, by the label on Gallo's cheapest wine, Thunderbird. To Richard's astonishment, still others thought the colors echoed that of the Nazi flag of the Third Reich. But experts have largely argued that the flag's purported association with the Nazi movement was ridiculous. Lauren Araiza, an associate professor at Denison University, told The Associated Press that in addition to red and black being eye-catching colors, the tone of red used in the flag was inexpensive for printers. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, a professor of history at Fairfield University who specializes in the history of Nazi Germany, also told The Associated Press that the Nazi-inspiration claims were incorrect. 'One source of subtle confusion may be the fact that many Nazi flags featured an eagle with a swastika, the latter being a very geometric shape; the UFW flag also features a very geometrically rendered Aztec-style eagle that could evoke the geometric aspects of a swastika,' Rosenfeld said. 'But of course, there's no swastika on the UFW whatsoever.' In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'

In sum, César Chávez may have looked at the colors of the Nazi flag, among other emblems, while doing his research on the movement's banner. But the farmworkers' flag itself is not a Nazi flag, and the logos on it are inspired by Aztec imagery, among other elements. Furthermore, flag designer Richard Chávez had himself indicated he did not take inspiration from the Nazi flags. We thus rate this claim as 'False.'