False Rumor Suggests Sinking of Titanic Was Inside Job
On Sept. 13, 2022, a Telegram user shared a baseless meme that hinted the sinking of the Titanic was an inside job. It read, "These men opposed globalist's world banks (Federal Reserve). Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, [and John] Jacob Astor [all] opposed the new Federal Reserve bank. Today, these men would be worth $11 billion. All three of these men were aboard the Titanic when it sank. All three died that night."   According to the TinEye reverse image search website, this meme had been shared since at least 2014. However, the rumor itself had started spreading several years before. It's true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus, and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim intimated by the meme was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. Titanic The misleading meme appears to have been born out of previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage. owned Past memes suggested that Morgan had somehow miraculously orchestrated the voyage to end in tragedy in order to kill Guggenheim, Straus, and Astor. According to the memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was because they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.) established The meme in question also said, "Today, these men would be worth $11 billion." However, it's unclear how much each of the men's descendants would be worth today had they survived. In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of Titanic goes all the way back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that showed Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea. published reported It's widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, the reporting from Reuters said. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died. died We contacted Behe in an effort to find out if there had been any updates since Reuters published its story in 2021. "To the best of my knowledge, the conspiracy theory is just as false today as it was when it was first created, and no important new revelations have turned up within the last couple of years," Behe told us in an email dated Jan. 8, 2023. "Sadly, once these nonsensical conspiracy theories have been foisted upon the general public via the internet, the theories are destined to plague humanity forevermore and will continue to fool innocent people who are unfamiliar with the facts." For further details, Behe pointed us in the direction of historian J. Kent Layton, who is credited as an author for books including, "Conspiracies at Sea: Titanic and Lusitania," "On a Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic," and "Recreating Titanic & Her Sisters: A Visual History." "We've been tackling this nonsense with historical data since at least the late-90s to early-00s," Layton told us by email in June 2023. "However, social media is a fantastic breeding ground for conspiracies of all sorts.Titanicseems to be a favorite of many." Layton remarked to us in detail regarding why the conspiracy theory made no sense to him: I would point out that if the sinking had actually been a conspiracy to kill those three individuals, there would have been no way that they could ensure their actual demise unless they had locked them somewhere inside the ship to die as it sank. Instead, the evidence indicates that all three were seen during the sinking. Guggenheim famously case aside his heavy coat and lifebelt after his steward had helped him into them, saying that he and his manservant were 'dressed in their best and prepared to go down as gentlemen'. Straus nearly made it into a lifeboat, and fellow passengers even recommended that he board a lifeboat with his wife, but he deferred, preferring to let women and children board while he waited behind with other men. Astor was seen very late in the disaster, helping his wife into a lifeboat; when he asked an officer loading the boat, apparently Second Officer Lightoller, if he could board, Lightoller said no. However, Lightoller had maintained a rather rigid policy of allowing no men into the lifeboats that he filled, and there had been plenty of other opportunities for Astor to board a boat. In fact, we recently discovered an account that indicated that Astor and his wife had approached an early boat on the other side of the ship, when the situation seemed less serious, but that they had stepped back from the lifeboat of their own accord at the last moment and stayed for a while longer on the ship. If a conspiracy to kill these three men had been so deep and involved so as to actually sink an ocean liner and kill hundreds of innocent people, one would think that the individuals responsible would not have left the survival of these three men to chance. This story will be updated in the future should we uncover any further helpful information. Beattie, Andrew, et al. "How the Federal Reserve Was Formed." Investopedia, 24 June 2007, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/federal-reserve.asp. Bird, Mike. "There's a Wild Conspiracy Theory That the Rothschilds Sank the Titanic to Set up the Federal Reserve." Business Insider, 12 Oct. 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/conspiracy-theory-that-the-rothschilds-and-federal-reserve-proponents-sank-the-titanic-2015-10. "CORRECTED-Fact Check-J.P. Morgan Did Not Sink the Titanic to Push Forward Plans for the U.S. Federal Reserve." Reuters, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-titanic-conspiracy-idUSL1N2LF18G. "Federal Reserve Board - Structure of the Federal Reserve System." Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm. "ISIDOR STRAUS URGES NEW BANKING PLAN; Replies to J.J. Hill's Attack on the National Reserve Association Scheme." The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1911, https://www.nytimes.com/1911/10/16/archives/isidor-straus-urges-new-banking-plan-replies-to-jj-hills-attack-on.html. "John Jacob Astor | American Businessman [1864-1912]." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Jacob-Astor-American-businessman-1864-1912. Kennedy, Dana. "Divers Find Champagne, Dishes In Shipwreck, But No Gold Yet." AP News, 16 July 1987, https://apnews.com/article/a9b6a7e5cd8104edf4501f876eebf44b. Segal, Troy, et al. "Central Bank." Investopedia, 18 Nov. 2003, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/centralbank.asp. "The White Star Line and The International Mercantile Marine Company." Titanic Historical Society, 28 Mar. 2018, https://titanichistoricalsociety.org/international-mercantile-marine-company/. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. "Titanic | History, Sinking, Rescue, Survivors, Movies, & Facts." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Titanic. June 20, 2023: This reporting was updated to include insight from George Behe. June 22, 2023: This reporting was updated to include thoughts from author and historian J. Kent Layton.
In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package for dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, one several-year-old, check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media:  Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences in misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account:  A little common sense would be relevant here: If your simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check  and clearly that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks: deposited checks The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank, or the victim, discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works: check-clearance Unfortunately, the term clear sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writers bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your banks computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly -- usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000 -- and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writers bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account -- even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and youre the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: o Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. o Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. o Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit (counterfeit) checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. o Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. o Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. o Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: describes Fake checks drive many types of scams  like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you dont know asks you to deposit a check  sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed  and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment  theyre stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers youve deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and youre stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank.  The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared. Brunelli, Laureen Miles.  "How to Recognize a Fake Check Scam."
  The Balance.  11 November 2019. Pritchard, Justin.  "Did That Check Really Clear?"
  The Balance.  24 February 2019. Tressler, Colleen.  "Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam."
  Federal Trade Commission.  5 September 2018. Loftsgordon, Amy.  "Fake Check Scams Target Job Seekers."
  Lawyers.com.  Accessed 2 April 2020. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In October 2020, a claim started to circulate social media positing that Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden said that he grew up in Section 8 housing:  This claim is based on something Biden said during an ABC News town hall on Oct. 15, 2020. But while Biden did mention Section 8 housing during this event  a reference to a section of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 that offered assistance to low-income Americans  he never said that he lived in Section 8 housing.   Section 8 housing What Biden did say was that he used to live in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing. Here's a transcript of Biden's comment from ABC News: transcript Look, this is the way every other, how do most, like my dad, he lost his job up in Scranton and it took him three years to be able  he moved down to Delaware to Claymont (inaudible), a little steel town. And sent us home to our grandpop to live with him. We finally got back, we lived in apartments. Became Section 8 housing much later, it wasn't -- it was just normal apartments. But it took him five years to be able to buy a home. Biden made this comment while he was responding to a question about why the Black community should support his bid to win the presidency. This portion of the town hall begins at the 1:24:50 mark of the following video. Biden's comment about Section 8 housing can be seen at 1:30:45.  Biden did not say that he used to live in Section 8 housing. He said that he lived in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing.  Semuels, Alana.  "How Housing Policy Is Failing America's Poor."
  The Atlantic.  24 June 2015. ABC News.  "Read the Full Transcript of Joe Biden's ABC News Town Hall."
  15 October 2020. Reuters.  "Fact Check: Biden Did Not Say He Lived in Section 8 Housing."
  19 October 2020. A photograph purportedly showing an image of Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., the two older sons of President Donald Trump, has been circulating on social media in various forms since at least June 2017: circulating various @realDonaldTrump Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it. pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/gnxy9BIwmn  Linda Radtke (@lradtke77) June 9, 2017 June 9, 2017  The image, which provides an oddly grotesque look at President Trump's olders sons, has been re-purposed in various memes to mock the First Family. For instance, it has been turned into a movie poster for Dumb and Dumber, was shared in a meme comparing the two Trumps children into to the "sloth" character from the movie The Goonies, and was frequently shared with the captions "They look like that "h'yucc" sound Goofy be making" or "Donald Trump HATES this photo of his two sons. Please don't share it." Dumb and Dumber sloth captions However, this picture (despite the Getty Images watermark) is not a genuine photograph of Donald Trump's sons, but a digitally altered version of one. The original photograph was taken on 12 November 2005, during Donald Trump, Jr.'s wedding reception at his father's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was captioned: "Donald Trump, Jr. pose with his brother Eric Trump after the wedding ceremony at the Mar-a-Lago Club on November 12, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by C. Allegri/Getty Images)" original Several subtle changes were made to the original image in order to uglify the Trump brothers. For instance, Donald Trump, Jr.'s upper lip was enlarged, his bottom teeth were hidden, his right eye was moved off-center, and his left ear was lowered. Eric Trump's eyes were also widened, and some extra fat was added to his neck. Here's a comparison of the fake image (left) and the real image (right): Claim:  Analysis demonstrates the "Cash for Clunkers" program's gasoline savings to be an inefficient economic trade-off. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2009]     I guess I must be on the wrong page... A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles  so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about  of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!! Origins:  In 2009, the federal government's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers," provided consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 discounts for trading in older model automobiles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient vehicles.  The analysis presented above maintains that the CARS program essentially spent $3 billion in federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds in order to save $350 million in (foreign) oil purchases, an inefficient economic trade-off.   The premise that the sole purpose or benefit of the CARS program is to save money on U.S. expenditures is a rather specious one to begin with.  And even within that framework,the analysis is flawed in key aspects. According to the latest CARS statistics,  auto dealers conducted 690,114 transactions through the program, and cars traded in through the program averaged 15.8 MPG, while new vehicles purchased through the program averaged 24.9 MPG.  Assuming, as stated above, that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year, we arrive at the following calculations: statistics A vehicle averaging 15.8 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 759.5 gallons of gasoline per year. A vehicle averaging 24.9 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 482 gallons of gasoline per year. The average CARS transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 277.5 gallons of gasoline per car per year. The 690,114 vehicles sold through the CARS program will therefore save a total of 191.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. So far, so good  our figures make the CARS program look even less economically efficient than the original analysis does.  The fatal flaw comes in the next step, however. The example presented above claims that 224 million gallons of gasoline are the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil (i.e., one barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline), which is an erroneous assumption.  One barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons of crude oil, not 42 gallons of gasoline  the crude has to be put through a refining process before it becomes gasoline. How much gasoline is produced from one barrel of crude varies according to the refining process used and the type of crude oil involved, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. refineries produce between 19 and 20 gallons of motor gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil." (Crude oil contains many different types of hydrocarbons, not all of which can easily be converted to gasoline, so other petroleum products such as kerosene and lubricating oil are also produced during the refining process.) EIA hydrocarbons If we take the mid-point of that range (i.e., 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil) and multiply it by the $75 per barrel price quoted in the example, we find: 191.5 million gallons of gasoline / 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil = 9.8 million barrels of oil 9.8 million * $75 per barrel  = $735 million This savings of $735 million per year is over twice the $350 million figure posited in the original analysis.  (The latter figure should actually be $375 million; the original contains a mathematical error in stating that 5 million multiplied by 75 equals 350.)  Moreover, the gasoline-saving benefits produced by the CARS program won't simply dissipate after the passage of a single year, as suggested above.  According to the  CARS stats, the total dollar value of transactions conducted under the "Cash for Clunkers" program was about $2.9 billion. Therefore (if all other factors remained the same), the full cost of the CARS program would be offset by gasoline savings in about four years  not a spectacular trade-off, perhaps, but not nearly as bad a one as claimed in the original analysis.  (All of these figures assume the price of gasoline to be a constant, a dubious proposition since the cost of oil can fluctuate quite widely, especially in the short term.) The original analysis also focuses solely on savings in gasoline costs and doesn't take into account other intended or residual effects of the CARS program, such as the economic benefits of boosting auto sales, reducing pollution by replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing safety by replacing older cars with vehicles offering advanced safety features, and providing additional parts and raw materials for the market: [The clunkers'] components and frames ... have begun flooding the used parts and scrap-recycling markets with more than 100 million tons of steel, batteries, and tires, among other things. "This is like a second wave of stimulus to our economy," said Bill Goodale, general manager of Millis Industries, which has picked up about 200 clunkers from local dealers and expects to take possession of hundreds more in the next few weeks. "As it trickles down, it helps junkyards. It helps the guy looking for cheap parts to keep his car going. It adds a lot of steel to a market that hasn't produced much of it in the last year." Last updated:  13 September 2009 In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote   That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin.  expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income.  According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021:  Source: Washington County Attorney's Office  However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.  could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. Claim:  Truckers are poised to strike over rising fuel prices.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Good Morning Friends,I have spoken with a few independent truckers in the past 24 hours, and they ALL have indicated to me that there will be a nationwide trucker strike by the Teamsters Union & Major Independents commencing between 8 & 12 September 2005. They will be protesting the high price of fuel nationwide, and intend to bring the Nation to her knees, as they did in the early seventies. I have no reason to doubt these individuals, as their grapevine is usually accurate, and this poses a serious problem for the Nation at large. Almost everything moves by truck across this country, and it won't take very long for our merchants shelves and gasoline storage tanks to empty resulting in serious shortages in food and fuel. So, be prepared.... fill your pantries and autos prior to the eighth of September!!!! Unlike the contrived oil and gasoline shortages of the early seventies, the US is not in the position of turning open the spigot and allowing the oil and refined products to flow. Because of the hurricane, the lack of new refineries, and the lack of an ingenious national energy policy, these shortages are real and will be exploited by the Teamsters Union. Every domestic refinery is producing gasoline and home heating oil at maximum capabilities, and combined with the shut down of the refineries in the Gulf due to the hurricane, along with the inability to pump crude oil from the Gulf region, there will be serious shortages for approximately two months. This is a serious National emergency!!!! There have already been long gasoline lines in the South this Labor Day weekend, as many with whom I have spoken from that region have stated to me that in some areas of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, gasoline is already being rationed. These individuals are being allowed only 10 gallons each.... just enough to get by during this shortage. Every Governor of the above mentioned states have asked their citizens to stay at home over the holiday, thus trying to avoid a disaster in the making. Wal-Mart has announced that their entire fleet of trucks will stop moving good and services effective Tuesday, September 6th... they know that something is in the making, and don't want to jeopardize either their trucks or personnel during the National Strike. Every independent trucker with whom I have spoken, has stated to me that they will not roll during this time frame, as the Teamsters mean business!!!! Terry......Teamster Union Member  [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Are you aware American's are considered greedy? - Saudi Arabia 2005 target price for selling oil was $21 a barrel. Currently, they're selling oil at almost $70 a barrel, while their cost of producing that barrel is just $1.50 . . . (Fortune, Financial Times, New York Mercantile, Exchange) Consider this E-mail a WARNING...Truckers unions losing patience with the Federal Government and the U.S. Oil Companies... truckers are advised to watch for signs of terrorist activity (AP). . .Under pressure, major freight carriers strike early agreements with Teamsters Union . . . 88,000 unionized truckers are getting the brunt of fuel costs, the major Truckers Unions and drivers has had about enough of getting ripped off.  With truckers unions and drivers claiming unreal fuel expenses the unrest and shift is beginning to give birth to a National Truckers Strike. There have been some severe strikes in years past and the talk is complete shut down.  Even the owner operators will park their rigs and go out and even work at menial jobs just to survive. The cost of operationhas been eating away their truck payments.  One comment was said at a local, "I wonder if the banks have big enough parking lots to hold the repossessions" . . . The anger has begun to intensify with drivers and the Truckers Union which is directed towards Federal and Oil Companies.  August 17th 2005 a small nucleus of Tanker and Trailer drivers begun to organize in Alabama. It is said three Unions have started to react with the drivers and are threatening to strike for lower fuel prices or else.  It has elevated to a fever to contact and encourage their counterparts in other States throughout the nation to strike, Nationwide. If this threat begins to take form, there are preparations that MUST be started NOW.  The trucking industry is the prime provider for pretty much everything we have and enjoy in our home. One major item happens to be our FOOD, then our Fuel, medical supplies, clothing, housewares, building materials, emergency supplies when disaster happens, it goes on and on and on. Get the point, this fuel expense is beginning to take its toll. It is vitally serious and important for you to increase your immediate food supply, purchase can food items, canned meat, (most of these canned items have a shelf life of 5 Years.)  NOW is time to STOCK UP and not when the trucks stop rolling. THIS IS A WARNING IN ADVANCE.  Inform your friends and families include the elderly. You are asked to send this to anyone and everyone. This threat is real, do nothing now and you will find out.  [Collected via e-mail, March 2008] I drive a delivery truck, and stopped at a truck stop off of I - 95. There was a group of truckers standing around talking, and I happened to hear them talking about the upcoming strike planned for the first of April. It is in response to the unaffordable diesel prices, and our government's lack of help to the independent businessman. I was told by them that I should try and stay off of I-95 and to stock up on food stuffs because its gonna get really expensive, really quick. Has any one else heard of this? I have noticed that the local grocers I deliver to have doubled their on hand supply of foodstock, and have noticed that prices have started to really go up quite a bit, really quickly. This might be one heck of a great april fools joke, but what if it isn't? Origins:  Various e-mails about a looming independent truckers and Teamsters union strike began arriving in inboxes everywhere in the last week of August 2005.  However, at that time there was no mention of an impending nationwide labor action on the Teamsters web  Teamsters site, nor was there an announcement from Wal-Mart that its fleet of trucks would suspend operations on Tuesday, September 6th (as claimed in e-mailed warnings). And, in the event, no such truckers' strike ever did materialize. In March 2008, rumors once again began to circulate that truckers would stage a strike on 1 April 2008 (not as a mandatory union-sponsored work stoppage, but as a grassroots demonstration supported by independent truck owner-operators) to protest the rising price of diesel fuel. Until a few years ago diesel fuel had generally been cheaper than gasoline, but emissions standards requiring the use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) have driven up diesel prices to the point that it is now often more expensive than gasoline.  (As of mid-March 2008, the average price of diesel fuel in the U.S. was $4.037 per gallon, while gasoline prices averaged $3.275 per gallon during that period.) ULSD Every 5-cent increase in the price of diesel results in an estimated $1,000 increase in truckers' annual expenses, and in March 2008 independent truckers began talking about staging a one-day nationwide trucker shutdown on 1 April 2008 to protest the prospect of their "going broke out on the highway wearing our trucks out": A trucker's strike may be looming on the horizon.  Many independent over the road truck drivers are fed up with rising fuel and insurance costs and are looking into organizing and trying to join together to take rigs off the road and that would mean shortages at supermarkets, convenience stores and if it was carried out to the extreme, eventually at every retail outlet in America.  Everything that gets delivered to a retail store in your city or town is eventually delivered by a truck, and if it were highly organized a strike could paralyze the economy. Whether such a shutdown will take place, how widespread participation will be, and how effective such an action will be in ameliorating truckers' rising fuel expenses is something that will only be known in the aftermath. There is precedent for independent truck owners and operators banding together to strike over rising fuel costs (although the word "strike" is being used here not in its familiar sense of an action waged against employers to force better wages, benefits, or working conditions for employees, but a work stoppage intended to paralyze industry and thereby force a change in government policy).  In February 1974, four months after OPEC had declared an oil embargo against the U.S. and other western nations over their support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a group known as the Owners/Operators Independent Drivers Association of America staged a national strike to protest the spiraling costs of fuel, fuel shortages, and reduced speed limits. (In response to the OPEC oil embargo, President Nixon had signed a bill imposing a 55 MPH speed limit on interstate highways.)  The ten-day strike resulted in numerous acts of violence, prompting Pennsylvania governor Milton Shapp to activate National Guard units to assist in providing security for commercial vehicles and roadways.  The conditions that prompted the strike largely evaporated when OPEC ended its embargo the following month. Last updated:  26 March 2008    Byrd, Gene.  "Trucker's Strike Looming: Fuel Cost Protest in April, Real or Hoax?"   The National Ledger  24 March 2008.     CNNMoney.com.  "Gas Prices Rise."   28 March 2008.     The Quad City Times.  "Whispers Grow of Nationwide Truckers Strike."   26 March 2008. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here While tensions mounted over the presidential election results in early November 2020, former U.S. President Donald Trump campaign adviser Steve Bannon called for a second Trump term to kick off with some firings.  During the Nov. 5, 2020, edition of the Breitbart News executives podcast, "War Room Pandemic," Bannon made jabs at National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray and appeared to endorse violence against them when he said the following: Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone -- time to stop playing games. By the following day, the video had been deleted from all of Bannons official platforms, but was still floating around social media, including the below snippet shared on Twitter. Twitter  A longer version of the podcast video was shared by Media Matters, a web-based, not-for-profit research and information center dedicated to monitoring misinformation in the U.S. Media. (The video has been archived here for reference.) Media Matters here A Twitter spokesperson confirmed to Snopes in an email sent Nov. 6 that, "the @WarRoomPandemic account has been permanently suspended for violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our policy on the glorification of violence. The platform went on to add that statements made by Bannon went against policies in place that address clear threats of violence, abuse and harassment, and hateful conduct. @WarRoomPandemic policy on the glorification of violence violence abuse and harassment hateful conduct   As of Nov. 6, Bannons official Facebook page and YouTube channel were both still available online, though it appeared that the video in question had since been deleted. Snopes sent emails to YouTube and Facebook for further comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication. We will update the article accordingly if we hear back. official Facebook page YouTube channel Bannon and some of his followers have been described as Trump loyalists, and it was not uncommon for such groups to go after those whom the president had expressed dislike toward. While testifying in front of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee on Sept. 17, Wray said that the FBI had not seen, to date, a coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election. We have certainly investigated  if I just may finish. Weve certainly have investigated a voter fraud committed by mail. Its typically been at the local level. Trump loyalists Sept. 17, When Wray appeared to question and place doubt in Trumps claims that mail-in ballots would lead to fraud in the 2020 general election, the administration publicly went after the former attorney.  The Washington Post reported on Oct. 21 that Trump and his advisers had repeatedly discussed whether to fire Wray after Election Day because of his inability to produce incriminating evidence against Democratic candidate Joe Biden. In an Oct. 8 interview with Fox News Business, Trump furthered that Wray was disappointing in that he didnt see the voting ballots as a problem. The Washington Post Fox News Business Trump has also publicly expressed dismay at the actions of Fauci, who spearheaded the COVID-19 pandemic response since March. In an editorial published by The Hill, opinion contributor Gregory Wallance wrote that Fauci gets in the way of Trumps economic revival strategy following unprecedented nationwide business closures by telling Americans the truth about the pandemic. Since the onset of the pandemic, Fauci warned that the worst is yet to come, and urged local leaders to continue to heed the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in spite of what the president said. The Hill warned heed the advice During a campaign rally in Arizona in October, Trump made fun of Fauci, adding that he was a wonderful man but a bad arm (around the 15-minute mark). I saved thousands of lives. He admitted that two months later. Two months later. And Dr. Fauci said, Dont put on masks. You see the thing. And now, he says put on masks, and they say hes a wonderful guy, and he is a wonderful guy. I like him. He just happens to have a very bad arm. He has a bad arm, but hes a good guy. He is a good guy. A lot of our people dont like him. I like him. You have to understand him. Hes a promoter. What can he do? And its a choice between the American dream or a totally socialist nightmare. Thats what youll have. Youll be a socialist country. And I said, Our country will never be a socialist country. Were not going to let it happen. Itll be destroyed. https://www.c-span.org/video/?477078-1/president-trump-campaign-rally-prescott-arizona On 14 June 2015, a number of Florida news outlets published a seemingly remarkable photograph, sent to them by a man named Richard Jones, showing a raccoon riding the back of an alligator like a surfboard: published  The peculiar sight may have been endearing, but it also left many viewers questioning the image's authenticity. Photographer Richard Jones's explanation of how he snapped the image was that he was walking with his son along the Oaklawaha River in the Ocala National Forest when they came across a raccoon. Their appearance startled the creature, he said, which sought the safety of the water, where it hopped onto the back of an alligator. The raccoon was only "riding" the alligator for a short while, Jones said, as the gator quickly slipped underwater and the raccoon scurried back onto land:  Had a wonderful morning with the family in Ocala National forest and took an equally wonderful photo! We were walking along the Oaklawaha river watching some gators warm up in the morning. My son went through some palm fronds to catch a different angle and frightened a raccoon. It must have been asleep because it stumbled toward the water and hoped on top of the gator we were watching. I snapped a lucky picture right when the gator slipped into the water and before the raccoon jumped off and scurried away. Without the context you'd think the raccoon was hitching a ride across the river. Pretty amazing. Definitely the photo of a lifetime. Included a second one my wife took or the area. You have my permission to share the photo and use the photo in any way. I don't want anything in return. Just thought other people might enjoy it. However, not everyone took the photograph at face value. The Florida Times-Union published it but included a disclaimer stating that they hadn't confirmed its authenticity:   published The photo of the gator with raccoon in tow seems to have gone viral on social media, and the story has been picked up by several other media outlets. And although we haven't been able to confirm the authenticity of these images, this was too good of a story to leave our viewers out of the loop. DISCLAIMER: Mr. Jones did not leave a phone number in his email so that we could confirm the authenticity of the image. We did try to contact him via his email address and we also requested he phone us. At the time this story was posted, we still have not received a call or email from Mr. Jones.   The Ocala Star Banner was more skeptical, opting not to publish the photograph due to questions about its authenticity and a lack of response from the submitter:Until now, the Star-Banner has declined to publish the photo because we still have questions about its authenticity. We have reached out to the photographer, a man named Rich Jones, but [have] not heard back from him. Heres a summary of our concerns: +Scope: The raccoon seems out of proportion -- too big -- compared with the alligator. +Feet: Even zooming in, you cant tell whether the raccoon has feet. +Tail: Dont raccoons usually have longer, fluffier tails? +Posture: That is an unusual pose for a raccoon. It almost looks like a taxidermy piece. +Gator: The alligators eye has an odd color, shape and placement. Its body seems rubber-like. +Mask: The raccoons mask seems like an add-on. When a photographer in London captured a somewhat comparable image of an animal "riding" another animal in February 2015  a rather amazing picture of a weasel hitchhiking on the back of a woodpecker in flight  a small army of photoshop experts also declared that picture to be fake for similar reasons. But in that case the photographer made himself available for interviews, and the consensus remains that that photograph was real. captured consensus While Jones didn't come forward with more information about the image, a performance artist who goes by the name "Zardulu" did. In December 2016, Zardulu told the Washington Post that she was responsible for a number of social media hoaxes, including this photograph of the raccoon riding an alligator: Washington Post In 2015, there was an incredible viral photograph, a lucky shot, that showed a raccoon perched on the back of a swimming alligator. A man named Richard Jones told the local news that hed snapped the picture himself, and a lot of Florida news outlets ran with it. The story spread to larger publications. It went viral. There were plenty of doubters, of course. But also many believers, people who would prefer to live in a world where a raccoon could use a predator as a ferry. And that preference is exactly what Zardulu understands so well. I staged the raccoon and the alligator, Zardulu said. The animals are taxidermied; she sprayed each with a commercial product used to waterproof leather to protect them from the water. Zardulu showed us photographs of the setup, and some of herself, in costume, clutching the animals:   Weber, Greta.  "Raccoon Rides Alligator in Florida  Is It for Real?"
  National Geographic.  16 June 2015.


 Ohlheiser, Abby.  "She Staged a Viral Story. You Fell for Her Hoax. She Thinks Thats Beautiful."
  The Washington Post.  14 December 2016. WFTV.  "Man Snaps Picture of Raccoon on Top of Gator in Ocala National Forest."
  14 June 2015. Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether hell run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBCs Meet the Press. Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally. Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspectiveand making a claim of his own. But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average. How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged. So lets check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the Meet the Press graphic said Wisconsins rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walkers office didnt dispute this part of Todds claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames dont match up precisely with Walkers time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsins job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todds statement True.