The 'OO5251839' Post Doesn't 'Circumvent' Facebook Algorithm
In May 2021, an old and false claim was resurrected about Facebook friends. It claimed that copying and pasting a message with the code "OO5251839" would show a Facebook user's posts to old friends. It would also purportedly allow users to see posts from friends that maybe hadn't appeared in their News Feeds for years. old and false claim message The purported Facebook code began with two letters: "OO5251839." Some variations may have started with zeroes: "005251839."   Posts that soared in popularity in mid-2021 began with: "Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook  OO5251839 Works!!" Thanks for the tip to circumvent Facebook...OO5251839 Works!! I have a whole new profile. I see posts from people I didn't see anymore. Facebook's new algorithm picks the same people - around 25-who will see your posts. Hold your finger anywhere in this post and click " copy ". Go to your page where it says " what's on your mind". Tap your finger anywhere in the empty field. Click paste. This is going to circumvent the system. Hello new and old friends! Hello Drop a single hello, thanks! PLEASE SAY HELLO IF YOU SEE THIS. Hello to all! However, this "OO5251839" message had no impact on the Facebook algorithm. Some Facebook users might have thought that the "OO5251839" message worked if they received comments under their posts. However, if this was the case, the explanation is simple. might have thought worked received comments The copy-and-paste message asked friends to say "hello." It would not be a huge surprise that some of the poster's friends saw the message and responded "hello." It's also likely that the more comments a post received, the better it might rank in the News Feeds of friends. As more "hello" comments racked up, it's probably going to show to more friends. Copy-and-paste Facebook rumors have been circulating about as long as Facebook has been around. The "OO5251839" message was not the first time that Facebook users copied and pasted posts that were said to avoid or protect against unwanted aspects of the Facebook platform. For example, in the past we covered a false claim about "copy and paste" and "don't share" messages. We also reported about a dubious warning in regards to Facebook and Instagram purportedly making all posts public. copy and paste" and "don't share making all posts public In sum, the "OO5251839" Facebook message did not circumvent Facebook's algorithm or change anything about a user's Facebook friends.
In early 2022, folk-rock legend Neil Young found himself the target of a laughable conspiracy theory after he spoke out against COVID-19-related misinformation. On Jan. 24, Young wrote that he wanted his music removed from the streaming platform Spotify, unless the company ended its agreement to host Joe Rogan's podcast, which has on several occasions provided a forum for potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. In response, Spotify removed Young's back catalog from its library, rather than cutting ties with Rogan.  wrote misinformation removed In the midst of that controversy, vaccine skeptics and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists shared a ludicrous conspiracy theory claiming that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer  which produces a widely-used COVID-19 vaccine  either owned the rights to Young's music catalog or, through a chain of connections, held sway over the rock star and influenced, or even ordered, his pro-vaccination stance.  For example, some social media users posted a meme with the text, "When you realize Neil Young's music catalogue is owned by Pfizer": posted meme   Others did not explicitly claim that Pfizer itself owned some or all of Young's catalog, but did suggest that the company held sway over him, by way of a series of connections, and that therefore Young's opposition to Rogan and his criticism of vaccine misinformation should be dismissed as the result of corruption and self-compromise, rather than a principled stance.  did suggest series connections On social media, a conspiracy theorist who uses the moniker An0maly outlined the theory in helpful detail, starting with the observation that in January 2021, Young reportedly sold half of his catalog to a U.K.-based investment fund called Hipgnosis, for around $150 million. An0maly continued: outlined the theory So, 50% to UK investment fund Hipgnosis. In October of 2021, Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launched [a] "$1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties." Interesting. Blackstone is "an American alternative investment management company" who, interestingly enough, in 2020 announced the appointment of "Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as [a] senior adviser." Now I don't know the answer to this, but did Neil Young independently make the decision to try and blackball Joe Rogan for questioning big pharma and the government narrative? Or was it a team decision with a multi-billion-dollar investment firm who also owns a big chunk of his music? The first point to note here is that, even among those promulgating the Young-Pfizer theory, it is not seriously suggested that Pfizer itself  which is, after all, a pharmaceutical company  owns the rights to any of Young's music. That claim can be dismissed.  Before assessing the logic behind the theory, and its coherence, it's worth briefly evaluating the accuracy of each of its components. First, it appears to be true that, in January 2021, Young sold half of his songs to Hipgnosis. In a news release, Hipgnosis wrote: "...The Company has acquired 50% of Neil Youngs worldwide copyright and income interests in his entire song catalogue comprising 1,180 songs." news release Secondly, it is also true that in October 2021, Blackstone bought an ownership stake in Hipgnosis, as demonstrated in news releases published by both companies. Finally, it is also true that in August 2020, Blackstone hired Jeff Kindler as a senior advisor, and that Kindler used to be the chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  both companies hired Jeff Kindler used to be However, rather than having uncovered a web of corruption, those pushing the Young-Pfizer story were engaging in the classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy of finding whatever possible connection they can between two separate entities (in this case, Young and Pfizer) without first testing the logical or chronological basis of that putative link. In other words, "connecting the dots" by whatever means available, rather than uncovering an actual, organic conspiracy.  Let's look at the sequence of events. Kindler left Pfizer in 2010  a full decade before he joined Blackstone, and before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pfizer to develop a vaccine along with its German partner BioNTech. left Pfizer in 2010 Blackstone is a publicly traded company, meaning it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and Kindler, in turn, has a professional obligation to provide sound business and strategic advice to Blackstone. Aside from presenting no concrete evidence whatsoever, those pushing the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory appear to be asking readers to believe, despite these circumstances, one of two explanations: publicly traded company As outlandish as these scenarios are, they are premised on even shakier assumptions: for example, that Kindler was even consulted on the Blackstone-Hipgnosis deal; or that if he was, he was in favor of it; and that Young has any remaining financial or commercial obligations to Hipgnosis and/or Blackstone after the sale of half his music  after all, if that deal is already done, what is the supposed basis of Hipgnosis or Blackstone's putative leverage over Young? It's not necessary to list, in excruciating detail, each of the known factual and logical flaws associated with the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory. The claim that the pharmaceutical company "owned Young's music catalog" was patently false, and the theory of a fantastical web of corruption, with Kindler at its centre, was presented without any concrete evidence and, perhaps more importantly, made no sense whatsoever. Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know In January 2022, an image circulated online allegedly alerting Caucasian customers of the fast food chain McDonald's that they would be required to pay an additional fee:   "As an insurance measure, due in part to the recent coup attempt of the Capital (sic) earlier this year, all Caucasian customers are required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction." McDonald's has no such policy, but the image appears to be a variation of a similar internet post. In 2012, a similar image with similar wording circulated online claiming that McDonald's was instituting an additional $1.50 fee on Black customers. claiming Mikkelson, David. "FACT CHECK: Did a McDonalds Impose a Surcharge on African-American Customers to Cover Robbery Insurance? Snopes, 24 Jan. 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/self-insured/. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity: reported   Although it's true that Maroon 5 partnered with their label Interscope Records and the National Football League (NFL) in making a $500,000 donation to the children's charity Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the money didn't come out of the band's performance fee. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy clarified in an email that Super Bowl halftime acts don't receive performance fees. McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country." People Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015. non-profit The large donations to charitable organizations were the result of the mounting pressure the NFL was facing over what critics called the "blacklisting" by the league of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired! stated Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him. grievance As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him. Associated Press Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here." ABC News Tracy, Brianne.  "Maroon 5 and the NFL Announce $500,000 Charity Donation Ahead of Super Bowl Halftime Show."
  People.  31 January 2019. Ruggieri, Melissa.  "Super Bowl 53: Travis Scotts Halftime Inclusion Comes Wwth Charitable Contribution from NFL."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2019. Landrum, Jonathan Jr.  "Cardi B Declined Super Bowl Halftime with Mixed Feelings.'"
  Associated Press.  1 February 2019. Allen, Karma et al.  "Maroon 5's Adam Levine Addresses 'Controversy' Surrounding Super Bowl Halftime Show, Teases Performance."
  ABC News.  1 February 2019. Langone, Alix.  "Here's How Much Maroon 5 Is Getting Paid to Perform at the 2019 Super Bowl."
  Yahoo Finance.  3 February 2019. Bieler, Des. " Colin Kaepernick Thanks Rihanna for Her Super Bowl Boycott."
  The Washington Post.  5 February 2019. On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are Claim:  An amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires gay residents to wear a sensor for identification.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] it basically says that Indiana is making a law where all gay people haveto wear a sensor to alert storeowners when they enter an establishment.sounds really fake to me, but, people have been re-posting it all oversocial media.   Origins:  On 28 March 2015, the Free Wood Post published an article titled "Indiana Requiring All Gay Residents to Wear Sensor That Will Trigger Alarm Upon Entering a Store". (Interestingly, that article was published prior to a large national debate that occurred after the owners of an Indiana pizza restaurant controversially supported the law during the course of a 31 March 2015 news interview.) article restaurant The  Free Wood Post's article didn't attempt to tread a line of plausibility in its claims: As an amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all LGBT citizens will be required to register with the state so that they can be mailed a sensor to wear on their body at all times. The sensor is so that any business that doesn't want an LGBT individual entering their establishment will be notified immediately of their arrival and an alarm will sound. These sensors will be much like a modern day version of the 'Star of David' Jewish citizens in Germany were required to wear during the time of Hitler's reign. The article included a purported quote from Indian governor Mike Pence about the amendment to the RFRA: It's all about freedom. Freedom for these business owners to know all the money they're receiving didn't come from gay hands. That's the devil's money, really. And who wants to pay payroll or rent or taxes with the devil's money? Although (coincidentally) well-timed, the article was nothing more than a spoof published by a satirical web site. Free Wood Post's disclaimer page states: disclaimer Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience. Previous Free Wood Post articles included a claim that the FCC had labeled Fox News as satire, quoted Ann Romney on the wage gap, and suggested that Mitt Romney had said he could relate to black people because his ancestors owned slaves. Fox News Ann Romney Mitt Romney   Last updated:  16 April 2015 Claim:  Juval Aviv correctly predicted upcoming terrorist attacks against the U.K. and the U.S.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2007] FROM THE C.O. OF MOSSAD / PLEASE READ A week ago, I was able to attend a dinner with Juval Aviv - the Israeli Agent who the movie "Munich" was about... He was Golda Meir's bodyguard and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. Tonight he shared information that EVERY American needs to know but our government has not shared. His bio is below, his book is "Staying Safe" and I suggest you buy and read it. First, I am going to share what he discussed in regard to the Bush Administration, 9/11 and Iraq and then I will share his predictions for the next attack on the U.S. (and he predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week - O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show and unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack occured). Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occured. His report specifically said they would use planes asbombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. The Administration ridiculed him and refused to respond (Congress has since hired him as a security consultant - but still the Administration does not listen to him). Within a month 9/11 occured. He didn't agree with going into Iraq - said it didn't make sense if we wanted terrorists responsible for 9/11 (and also he believes in Golda Meir's approach which  was to bring justice to the terrorists but do not take down civilians - killing civilians only creates more terrorists - but similar to Bush, Israel's subsequent leaders were not as insightful as Golda Meir) - however, when we did decide to invade Iraq we should have learned from Israel's past mistakes. He very articulately stated that Israel's greatest mistake against their war on terror was to invade the West Bank and Gaza and stay there... He said they should have done the proven anti-terrorist strategy which was "Hit and Leave" instead of "Hit and Stay." Now we are stuck in Iraq and it is worse than Vietnam - Iraq is the U.S.'s West Bank/Gaza . He doesn't think we will ever be able to truly leave because even when we are able to pull our troops back we will still have to go back regularly which will keep us quagmired. We should have hit hard and left immediately - or actually, we shouldn't have gone in at all... Now for the scary stuff.... He predicts the next attack on the U.S. is coming within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as the people on the plane will not go down quietly. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke- we are beingreactionary versus looking at strategies that are effective. 1) Our machines are outdated. They look for metal and the new explosives are made of plastic 2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire - we now have to take off our shoes, a group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives - now we can't bring liquids on board. He is waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on their underwear and light up in a plane or in the terminal and then we will all have to travel naked! 3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates, he says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times and on the front end when people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink (and I have done that for people myself) and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. Israel checks bags before people can enter the airport. Now, back to his predictions: He says the next attack will come in the next few months and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places that people congregate: Disneyland, Las Vegas, Big Cities (NY, SFO, Chicago, etc...) and there it will be shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, casinos, etc.. as well as rural America (Wyoming, Montana, etc...). The attack will be simultaneous detonations around the country (they like big impact) 5-8 cities including rural areas. They won't need to use suicide bombers because at largely populated places like the MGM Grand in Vegas - they can simply valet park! He says this is well known in intelligence circles but our government does not want to alarm Americans. However, he also said that Bush will attack Iran and Syria before he leaves office (we are being prepared for that! and I have to wonder if we are not hearing about this impending attack so America will support attacking Iran and Syria ?). In addition, since we don't have enough troops Bush will likely use small, strategic nuclear weapons regardless that the headlines the next day will read "US Nukes Islamic World" and the world will be a different place to such an extent that global warming will be irrevelent. He did a test for Congress recently putting an empty briefcase in 5 major spots in 5 US cities and not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago - someone tried to steal it! In Israel an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds with a citizen shouting "Unattended Bag" and the area cleared slowly, calmly and immediately by the people themselves. Unfortunately, we haven't hurt enough yet for us to be that concerned.... He also discussed how many children were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11 without parents to pick them up and the schools did not have a plan. Do you have a plan with your kids, schools and familiesif you cannot reach each other by phone? If you cannot return to your house? If you cannot get to your child's school - do they know what to do? We should all have a plan. He said that our government's plan after the next attack is to immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use their telephone, cell phone, blackberry because they don't want terrorists to be able to talk to one another - do you have a plan if you cannot communicate directly with those that you love? Again - I recommend his book, "Staying Safe" and I also recommend we heighten each other's attention now for the inevitable.... In fact, this week the Today Show began with a segment that Al Qaeda was resurfacing - the same kind of action on the Pakistani border occurred before 9/11... It is scary, but we do not have to panic, we just need to be aware.... Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not been helpful and we cannot change things until 2008. However, remember that when you vote.... Juval Aviv holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University. He is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Based in New York with offices around the world, founded in 1979, Interfor providesforeign and domestic intelligence services to the legal, corporate and financial communities and conducts investigations around the world. In addition, Mr. Aviv serves as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress and other policy makers on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103-Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich, as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations, security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfors asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients. Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s. While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr. Aviv wrote Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, (2004, HarperResource). He is also the author of several other published books on terrorism. He has been a guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight, ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles inmajor magazines and newspapers worldwide Origins:  Juval Aviv ian Israeli-American security consultant and writer and the president of New York-based Interfor Inc. (a corporate investigations firm). He was reportedly the source for the 1984 book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team  (the basis for the 2005 Steven Spielberg film Munich), he is the author of Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, and he has made predictions about imminent terrorist attacks on the United States (and the forms they might take) similar to the ones described above.  However, some critics have expressed skepticism about Aviv's background, claiming that he has grossly exaggerated his "spymaster" credentials, as the Guardian maintained in a 2006 article about the film Munich: Our investigations show that Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an Israeli Defence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early 70s. The tale he had woven [in Vengeance] was apparently nothing more than a Walter Mitty fabrication. Similarly, Chris Thompson wrote in the Village Voice that: Most famously, Aviv has promoted the idea that he was the lead Mossad assassin tasked with avenging the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in a secret operation that was portrayed in Steven Spielberg's 2005 film Munich. It was Aviv that actor Eric Bana was supposedly playing, though his name in the movie was "Avner." But throughout Aviv's rise as one of New York's biggest corporate spies and as a terrorism expert on television, there have been nagging questions about his legitimacy. Is this guy really who he says he is? Officially, the Israeli government says that Aviv is full of it. According to a 1990 letter from Yigal Carmon, then the Israeli prime minister's counterterrorism adviser, Aviv was never an assassin, let alone the person chosen by Golda Meir to avenge the Munich massacre. "Aviv does not work and has never worked for the Intelligence Community of the State of Israel," Carmon wrote in response to an inquiry from the U.S. government. In fact, Carmon added, the closest that Aviv ever came to intelligence work was as a security official for an El Al office in New York. "His work in that capacity was terminated at the initiative of the employer because of unsuitability resulting from negative character traits," Carmon wrote. "During the course of his work Yuval [sic] Aviv was found to be unreliable and dishonest."  Nonetheless, Aviv has built a remarkable career for himself. In 1989, following the Pan Am 103 bombing that killed 270 people in Lockerbie, Scotland, airline officials hired Aviv to investigate the incident. His report  alleging that the bombing was a CIA gun- and drug-smuggling operation gone terribly wrong  was leaked to the press, reportedly by Aviv himself. News outlets like Time, NBC, ABC, and Barron's picked up the story. But as more skeptical journalists began to examine Aviv's report, Pan Am officials suddenly dropped their plans to use it as a defense, and the media outlets that had run Aviv's allegations squirmed under the scrutiny. A Brooklyn federal magistrate later found Aviv's report to be utterly without merit. Today, American intelligence officials who were charged with investigating the Pan Am 103 bombing are still furious with Avivand they fume over the fact that national television outlets treat him as anything but a fraud. "This crud, this piece of dirt, went around inventing stories about how this plane got destroyed, because he was paid money to do so," says Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of operations and analysis at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. "The man is not worth being in human company, frankly." This guy's full of shit," says Larry Johnson, who served in the CIA and as a deputy director in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. "What's true is, yes, he has a security and corporate-intelligence firm, and he's big at playing up the Israeli mystique. If you say it with a foreign accent, you're good to go." Aviv, these senior counterterrorism officials insist, is no terrorism expert; instead, he's a liar who's been spreading falsehoods about his rsum and his prowess as an investigator. American RadioWorks, however, suggests that Aviv was the target of a smear campaign by the FBI for his  report implicating  U.S. govermment agents in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing: smear campaign In response to Aviv's report, and investigative news stories based on them, government officials launched an attack on Aviv that went well beyond simple denials. In letters to newspaper editors and on network TV, diplomatic and intelligence officials called Aviv a "fabricator" who had lied about his entire background.  Asked recently to back up that characterization, Hurley, formerly of the DEA, faxed us a letter dated May, 1990. The letter, signed by Yigal Carmon, "Israeli Prime Minister's Advisor for Countering Terrorism," says Juval Aviv never worked for Israeli intelligence and was fired from a low-level job with El-Al airlines for "dishonesty." The letter is on plain white paper, not Israeli government letterhead. We faxed it to the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. A spokeswoman said the letter did not have the look of a letter sent from the Office of the Prime Minister. When reached at an office in Tel Aviv, Yigal Carmon said he "did not know of anyone called Juval Aviv" and refused to discuss the contents of any letter with us. A spokesperson for El-Al Airlines in Tel Aviv said he was unaware of any such incident of "dishonesty" by Juval Aviv, or of any firing of Aviv. Aviv, for his part, produces several documents that he's entered into court refuting the accusation that he lied about his background. The documents include an FBI memo about Aviv from 1982, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and a contract between Aviv and the US Justice Department, dated 1984. Both refer to Aviv's past association with Israeli intelligence. As late as 1993, an FBI agent wrote to Aviv asking for assistance in a tax-recovery investigation, even as other government officials were publicly calling Aviv a fabricator. Whatever Juval Aviv's credentials might be, we found no evidence to support the claim that he predicted the July 2005 London bombings during a Fox News interview conducted just one week before those attacks occurred.  Although Aviv was a frequent guest on American news programs in the years after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, our search of television news transcripts did not turn up any appearances by him on such programs between 5 November 2004 and the day after the London bombings (8 July 2005).  He was interviewed on Fox News several days after the London bombings and issued a warning about an "imminent" terrorist attack on the United States, but he did not appear just prior to the London bombings and correctly predict them.  His predictions about terrorists hitting the U.S. in "six, seven, or eight cities simultaneously" sometime within the next "ninety days at most" are outdated, as he issued them back in July 2005.  It seems safe to say from this vantage point that those predictions were not correct, as no such attacks occurred. July 2005 Last updated:  22 April 2013    Thompson, Chris.  "Secret Agent Schmuck."    The Village Voice.  16 October 2007.    American RadioWorks.  "Aviv: Fabricator or Smear Victim?"      FOXNews.com.  "U.S. Terror Attack  'Ninety Days at Most.'"    13 July 2005.    The Independent.  "Juval Aviv: The Good Assassin."    16 July 2006. On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an Oakland, California, initiative named Oakland Resilient Families "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income." reported Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not tax-payer funded, however. All of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of it from a philanthropic non-profit group named Blue Meridian Partners," according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED. coalition funding according Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, and the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time." will be Oakland's Equality Index In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families goals, as the program's website  as well as the mayor  explicitly stated the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families." website the mayor That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets: tabloid headlines angry tweets Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status."  changed Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative  a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program  said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities," but that "it is open to all residents." said Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED that, We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty." told According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households: three times The median income for White households was highest ($110,000) and the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer."  states Because the program is "targeted" toward BIPOC families, but because  at least after some clarification on the part of Oakland Resilient Families  any family meeting the financial requirements can apply, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth. In early February 2024, Apple released the long-awaited Vision Pro headset. As Reuters reported, the headset "blends three-dimensional digital content with a view of the outside world." While some commentators claimed the device represented a "new tech dystopia," others suggested that it was predicted by the TV series "The Simpsons." released reported claimed On Feb. 5, 2024, a video went viral on Reddit, with the caption "The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro." The same claim was also spread on other social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok. video X YouTube TikTok The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro. byu/adityapixel inBeAmazed The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro.  u/adityapixel BeAmazed  The topic was also covered in the Daily Mail, New York Post, and The Independent. "The Simpsons predicted revolutionary $3,500 Apple Vision EIGHT years before fans flocked to buy newest tech and show them off in everyday life," Daily Mail headline read. Daily Mail New York Post The Independent In short, although the clip really is from the series, the claim that "The Simpsons" predicted the Apple Vision Pro is false. The clip originated from "The Simpsons" Episode 2 of Season 28, Friends and Family, aired in October 2016 (the in-question scene starts about 20:00 in the episode). originated First of all, virtual reality (VR) is not a new concept. By 2016, when the Friends and Family episode aired, companies such as Oculus VR had introduced their VR headsets to the market, so the concept of people using such devices was not a novel prediction by "The Simpsons." The show, known for its satirical take on societal trends and technological advancements, was merely reflecting the growing interest in VR technology that was already present at the time. Thus, attributing the anticipation of Apple's Vision Pro to "The Simpsons" series overlooks the fact that the technology was already known to the public and evolving rapidly at the time. virtual reality Oculus VR   (Olaf Carlson looks up during a press demonstration at The Village event space in San Francisco, California, on March 15, 2016. Getty Images) We have covered similar dubious "Simpsons" Predictions in the past. For instance, we investigated whether an episode predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In September 2023, we also debunked a claim that the series predicted the Tesla Cybertruck. "Simpsons" Predictions investigated debunked Friends and Family. The Simpsons, directed by Mike B. Anderson and Lance Kramer, 2 Oct. 2016. Friends and Family - The Simpsons (Series 28, Episode 2) - Apple TV (OM). AppleTV, 2 Oct. 2016, https://tv.apple.com/om/episode/friends-and-family/umc.cmc.5gyk9l73m6w6rqb32aji5hue3?showId=umc.cmc.1kfo3z1jtaj8ff6wsh9cvxbwu.
Heres When You Can Buy Oculuss Long-Awaited Virtual Reality Headset. TIME, 11 June 2015, https://time.com/3918081/oculus-rift-release-date-microsoft/. Kasprak, Alex. The Simpsons Predicted Teslas Cybertruck? Snopes, 8 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-predicted-cybertruck/.
 Nellis, Stephen, and Dawn Chmielewski. Vision Pro Headset Is Apples next Mac and TV Combined. Reuters, 3 Feb. 2024. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/technology/vision-pro-headset-is-apples-next-mac-tv-combined-2024-02-03/.
 Virtual Reality (VR) | Definition, Development, Technology, Examples, & Facts | Britannica. 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/technology/virtual-reality. Wrona, Aleksandra. The Simpsons Predicted 9/11 Attack on World Trade Center? Snopes, 11 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-predicted-wtc/. In February 2021, social media users enthusiastically shared a meme that attributed the following quotation to the actor Keanu Reeves: shared "I don't care how much you don't like me. The last time I checked, the road to heaven wasn't through your yard."   It's very unlikely Reeves ever uttered or wrote those words, but we cannot rule out that possibility. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. The quotation itself has been around since 2018 at the latest, and appeared in numerous widely-shared memes that year. In the intervening years, it has appeared on T-shirts, and in various online forums devoted to "inspirational quotes." numerous appeared T-shirts online forums Only more recently has it been attributed to Reeves, a clear indication (though not definitive proof) that he did not come up with it. We found instances of its attribution to the actor as early as August 2019, and social media users continued to share it in 2020. For reasons that are not clear, the meme enjoyed a resurgence in February 2021.  August 2019 2020 February 2021 We could not find any evidence to support the attribution of the quotation to Reeves, despite checking a news archive that stretches back several decades. The meme strongly appears to feature a generic, unattributed quotation of the kind that is widely shared on social media, which was belatedly linked to Reeves online.  However, we cannot rule out the possibility that Reeves wrote or uttered those words in some source that has since become obscure. As a result, for now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven."