Can You Text to 83361 to Receive a Free Target Gift Card?
In May 2018, social media users began reporting a new Target gift card scam in the form of a viral message that typically read something along the lines of "Text TARGET to 83361 and claim a free Target gift card":  On Facebook, these messages follow a formula: a greeting followed by the text scam and a smiling emoji. This suggests the involvement of bots, and that some users' Facebook accounts may have compromised. At least one person whose account posted a similar gift card scam subsequently said that the message was posted without their knowledge to every Facebook group of which they were a member:   As noted by sites such as IDTheftInfo.org, such messages are a form of "smishing" scam: IDTheftInfo.org This type of scam is known as smishing, a type of phishing scam where the scammer sends you a text message, instead of an e-mail.  If you click on the link in the text message, youll be required to provide personal information such as your credit card number or social security number before you can claim any gift card.  If the link provided in any text (or e-mail) message doesnt lead you directly to a page on the companys main website, its more likely than not that the offer is a scam.  The most popular website being used in this particular smishing scam, for example, is www.walmartgift.mobi (rather than the stores actual site, which is www.walmartstores.com).   Walmart does give away legitimate gift cards to the winners of drawings for receipt surveys, and these drawings take place four times per year.  However, the winners of these gift cards are always notified by certified mail, not via email or text message. Almost all the Facebook posts we found came with photographs of food to give a false impression that the "gift card" has allowed its recipients to splash out on a bounty of Target products. In reality, we were able to confirm that many of these images are taken from other sources  some from years ago  and used to add credibility to the scam.  posts many of these images taken from other sources This particular scam is similar to previous insidious hoaxes relating to free gift cards from Walmart and other retailers. On its web site, Walmart offered this advice to anyone who receives suspicious or unsolicited communications: previous advice Don't respond or reply to an email, phone call, or text message that: A spokesperson for Walmart confirmed by telephone that the previous similar "83361" gift card offer was a scam and "not legitimate."
In late July 2023, readers pointed us to several posts that had been made inside of Facebook groups. The users who made these posts, whose profiles all indicated they may have been from Bangladesh, claimed to be offering Walmart gift cards to anyone who could find a special number in an image. For example, one post read, "So Far No One Has Found Another Number Apart From 86, No Winners Yet (Walmart Gift Card). We Still Have 24 More Wins." post  The only other number visible in the above image was 96. Users who commented with "96" were replied to by the post's creator with a link that eventually led to a survey scam website. Survey scam websites usually promise cash prizes, pricey electronics, and other interesting purported "rewards," all supposedly if the user takes a few minutes to answer some questions. However, as we've reported for the last two decades or so, survey scam websites have historically proven to be a waste of time. They often ask users to provide personal and financial information on various websites, as well as to sign up for trials of unfamiliar streaming services. All of this appeared to be an attempt at receiving affiliate-marketing commission based on the amount of information given away when providing personal and financial data to these websites. historically proven Sometimes, these kinds of scammers might instead provide a link sending users to hidden subscription scams that supposedly offer "free" prizes. However, such scams hide monthly fees in the fine print, much like a Cash App scam we once reported about. Cash App scam These sorts of scammers might also sometimes direct users to phishing websites that claim a gift card or other prize could be ordered for "free," only with a small shipping and handling charge. Of course, there would be no real gift card or other prize. This simply would be an attempt to obtain a victim's financial information for criminal activities, such as a credit card number or PayPal login. This kind of a scam was similar to another one we previously reported about concerning the U.S. Postal Service. previously reported about If readers are looking for legitimate promotions for Walmart gift cards, we recommend our previous reporting that found the company truly does give away $80,000 in prizes every three months. Such promotions are offered by the company in official email correspondence and on receipts handed out in its brick-and-mortar stores. truly does give away $80,000 in prizes every three months Liles, Jordan. "Lowe's Email Scam Promises 'Exclusive Reward.'" Snopes, 7 Feb. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lowes-survey-exclusive-reward/. ---. "This Cash App Email Scam About a Fake Deposit Could Cost You Thousands on Your Credit Card." Snopes, 19 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cash-app-scam-email-fake-deposit/. ---. "UPS Email Scam Promises 'Exclusive Reward.'" Snopes, 4 Feb. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ups-email-exclusive-reward/. ---. "'USPS' Text Message Scam Claims Delivery Problem, Asks for Personal Financial Info." Snopes, 31 May 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usps-text-message-scam/. ---. "Was Walmart Giving Away $1,000 Gift Cards by Email?" Snopes, 7 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-1000-gift-cards/. The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children:     This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language:   The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C.  1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth.  "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law."
  Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project,  1974  (p. 71) Noah, Timothy.  "Lindsey Graham's Smear."
  Slate.  16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh.  "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12."
  Media Matters.  1 November 2005. On 9 July 2016, the Facebook page "The Medical Facts" published the image and explanation shown below, reporting the development of synthetic rhino horn as an anti-poaching measure: image A biotech startup has managed to 3-D print fake rhino horns that carry the same genetic fingerprint as the actual horn. The company plans to flood Chinese [the] Chinese rhino horn market at one-eighth of the price of the original, undercutting the price poachers can get and forcing them out eventually.  The International Rhino Foundation (IRF) and Save the Rhino International (SRI) issued a joint statement after "monitoring the progress of four US-based companies that have announced their intentions  with varying degrees of success  to produce synthetic or bio-fabricated rhino horn, and occasionally also other products including e.g. elephant ivory, lion bones or pangolin scales." In that statement, both groups expressed their opposition to the introduction of fake rhino horn to international markets: statement We are opposed to the development, marketing and sale of synthetic rhino horn [because]: o Selling synthetic horn does not reduce the demand for rhino horn or dispel the myths around rhino horn and could indeed lead to more poaching because it increases demand for the real thing o More than 90% of rhino horns in circulation are fake (mostly carved from buffalo horn or wood), but poaching rates continue to rise annually. o Synthetic horn could give credence to the notion that rhino horn has medicinal value, which is not supported by science. o Users buy from trusted sources and value the real thing. o The availability of legal synthetic horn could normalise or remove the stigma from buying illegal real horn. o It will take time to develop synthetic horn and meanwhile the poaching crisis continues. o How can consumers and law enforcement officials distinguish between legal synthetic horn that looks real, and illegal real horn? o Companies benefitting from making synthetic horn have shown very little commitment to use their profits to help the core problem of rhino poaching; besides which, those profits would meet only a tiny fraction of the total rhino protection costs that would remain to be met as long as demand reduction campaigns falter, as they would with the marketing of synthetic horn. o Finally, the manufacture / marketing / sale of synthetic horn diverts funds and attention from the real problem: unsustainable levels of rhino poaching. A December 2015 National Geographicarticle covered the efforts of one such biotechnology outfit producing synthetic rhino horn (Pembroke) and outlined some conservationist concerns about the unintended consequences of such a venture: article I frankly dont see that its any better, to be honest, says Susie Watts, a consultant for WildAid and co-chair of the Species Survival Network Rhino Working Group, referring to Pembients move to put faux powder on the back burner. While shes aware that people buy rhino horn jewelry, Watts has never heard of rhino horn cell phone cases and chopsticks. But opposition to Pembients synthetic horn plans extends beyond the possible new market it could create. Theres very little, if any, relief on wild populations when we see commercial farming develop or commercial trade of a protected species, says Douglas Hendrie, manager of the wildlife crime and investigations unit for conservation group Education for Nature - Vietnam. The wild trade continues right alongside. Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, also believes that inserting fake horn into the market could counteract efforts to educate people about why they shouldnt buy wild horn, a strategy most activists push as the best way to reduce demand. If you start to nuance that message with some rhino horn is good, some of it is bad, some of it is legal, some of it is illegal, he says, you lose people and lose the clarity of the message. Theres also concern that fake horn could increase the workload for law enforcement in countries already struggling to contain the illicit trade. According to Hendrie, Vietnam doesnt have the enforcement capacity to regulate the black market along with the legal one. A February 2016 followup article presented a five-point set of objections to the introduction of genetic copies of rhino horn to the market, filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity: presented Additionally, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace commented: Experience demonstrates that efforts to 'flood the market' with products produced from protected wildlifeeither by producing synthetic alternatives or raising animals in captivity for harvestoften fail to achieve their stated goal. Such efforts often create more demand from consumers, even as products from wild animals and plants continue to command a premium over synthetic or farmed alternatives. ... We also have significant concerns about injecting products into the market that would make it harder for law enforcement to detect poached and trafficked wildlife products, or allow criminals to disguise the source of illegal products by commingling them with these alternatives. In short, it's true that at least four biotechnology firms have engaged in some form of development of synthetic material genetically identical to rhino horn. Although progress in that area was initially hailed as a potential anti-poaching measure, conservation groups and wildlife officials have since expressed strong skepticism that the overall effects on the rhinoceros population of selling such material wouldn't be deleterious.  Members of both groups have espoused positions opposing the introduction of fake rhino horn to any market, citing anticipated demand uptick and burdens on already taxed enforcement agencies. Actman, Jani.  "Can Fake Rhino Horn Stop the Poaching of an Endangered Species?"
  National Geographic.  2 December 2015. Neme, Laurel.  "Petition Seeks Ban on Trade in Fake Rhino Horn."
  National Geographic.  10 February 2016. Save the Rhino International.  "Joint Statement by the International Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International."
  July 2015. In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325 Claim:  A Russian man was drugged and his testicles stolen by an attractive stranger. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] There appears to be a new version of the kidney robbery articlegoing around.  kidney robbery Now the Daily Mail in the UK has just published an article about a famousRussian actor (but not showing his face, but showing his name) beingdrugged and having his testicles stolen:  Origins:  On 26 February 2015, the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article titled "Married TV actor wakes up to find his testicles have been STOLEN after he is drugged in Russian bar by attractive blonde working for organ traffickers." As the example quoted above observed, the article bore many hallmarks of long-circulating urban legends involving organ theft (often as the result  article urban legends of an illicit or otherwise immoral sexual encounter).  According to the article, 30-year-old married Russian celebrity Dmitry Nikolaev met a blonde stranger in a bar in Moscow. After he (presumably) pursued an extramarital encounter with the woman, he awoke to unexplained and severe pain in the area of his groin and was later informed by doctors that his testicles had been removed (without his knowledge or consent). Moreover, the site claimed, the surgical procedure was performed by a skilled individual and likely resulted from a larger organized crime outfit trafficking in human organs. Neither the Daily Mail nor the Russian news source to which it referred provided any date, specific location, or other verifiable details of the alleged crime. The narrative stated that the man was transported to a hospital and only learned after an examination that his testicles had been removed, which does not sound particularly likely given even a layperson's ability to detect whether or not he currently possesses testes. It's possible that the news source intended to imply the man's testicles were replaced with prosthetics, but the nature of his injury was not detailed: referred They kissed and had some more beer and after that the actor remembers nothing,' said a police source. He woke up next day at a bus stop, feeling acute pain, and with blood on his trousers. Rushed to hospital, he was told that his testicles had been removed and that 'it was done like proper surgery by someone with a medical education'. The operation was conducted in a 'skillful way', said police, who believe his beer was spiked by an unknown drug. As discussed elsewhere on this site, the usefulness of such a donation (willing or not) is debatable. It's highly unlikely a crime such as the one described truly constitutes a profit center for gangs in any country, as testicles are neither a commonly purchased medical commodity nor a commonly transplanted organ, and organs of any description are delicate and difficult to transport. donation Finally, the manner in which the site partially obscured the purported victim's identity was atypical and suspicious. While the man's face was pixelated, his full name, age, and general location were utilized by the Russian news outlet from which the Daily Mail sourced the story. The translated article from which the claims arose concluded with a claim that the man's wife remained ignorant of his experience, which is rather implausible given that his full name and other identifying details were released by the media: Interestingly, the wife of the injured man is still convinced that her husband was in the hospital because of surgery on the genitals caused by a serious illness. Last updated:  26 February 2015 Those billboards around Milwaukee featuring Mayor Tom Barretts mug and a claim he saved Milwaukee $25 million are clever if you slow down to read the punch line.If you can do it without driving your car into an embankment, youll see theyare sponsored by the conservative Wisconsin Club for Growth and give credit to Barretts once -- and possibly future -- gubernatorial rival, Scott Walker, for making the savings possible.Barrett, the signs smaller print says, got the savings thanks to Gov. Scott Walkers reforms.The billboards hit on a theme voters undoubtedly will hear over and over from Republicans if Barrett takes on Walker in a possible recall election in 2012.The billboards refer to Walkers controversial budget legislation that took health care and pensions out of collective bargaining for most public employees.That allowed local governments and schools to impose cost-sharing for those benefits instead of negotiating with labor leaders.Barretts campaign, reacting tothead, denounced it as completely off base,in a statement toWTMJ4that said: The only thing accurate about that billboard is the picture of Tom Barrett.Whats the truth?Club for Growth didnt respond, but the Journal Sentinel reported in August that the city of Milwaukee will indeed save $25 million in 2012 just on health care costs, in large part by asking employees to pay more.In fact, Barretts budget document said revisions to the citys health insurance -- the ones made easier by Walkers changes -- would help drive overall health care costs down for the first time in more than 20 years.We contacted the same Milwaukee budget official quoted in August 2011, and he told us the city still expects a $25 million drop in health costs.Case closed?The official, city economist Dennis Yaccarino, says the $25 million actually overstates savings related to the Walker budget alone. He said city officials didnt make that clear in early August when a Journal Sentinel reporter first got the number from the city and published the $25 million figure in the context of Walkers changes. Thatstoryran Aug. 8, 2011.The newspaper followed upAugust 21, 2011, quoting city officials saying $6 million of that savings number was from the citys own decision to switch from an insured HMO to a self-funded approach due to projected cost savings. The $6 million switch is noted that way in Barretts budget.The move, we should note, was negotiated with the citys largest union two years ago but was not put in place until now for reasons unrelated to the state budget, according to Yaccarino and Richard Abelson, executive director of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, which represents general city employees.Yaccarino said the city calculated in 2011 that it was paying a profit to its carrier and could keep the money for itself by going self insured. That scenario had not existed until 2011, hence the delay, he said.So that leaves $19 million of savings for Milwaukee from Walkers original budget plan and the amended one he signed, right?Not exactly.Remember, the $25 million figure is just on the health care costs side fo the equation. What about public employees paying more in pension costs? Thats the second part of Walkers limits on collective bargaining over benefits. Milwaukee didnt put them in place due to questions about the legality of the state changes as they apply to Milwaukee. So thats a 0.Finally, city official note Walkers overall budget cut municipal aid, leaving the net savings to the city much reduced from $19 million.But the billboard refers to Walkers reforms, which is the changes tied to  the collective bargaining issue. It is making a narrower claim, on how much was saved from the reforms, not how the city fared overall.Our conclusionBillboards say Walkers reforms allowed Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to save $25 million for the city.The city is that much ahead, but a portion was Barretts doing before Walkers budget was enacted.We rate the claim Mostly True. In a September 2011 floorspeech, Democratic U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin spoke of two concerns he said are growing in the Lone Star State: poverty and hunger.Doggett said that in tough times, more families are turning to food banks, creating immense demand. Among his examples: The Austin-basedCapital Area Food Bank of Texasthis year is delivering 50 percent more food to poor people than it did three years ago.In his speech, Doggett attributed that figure to John Turner, a food bank official. We wondered if the proclaimed increase was correct, and if so, whether that accurately reflected a surge in hunger in our area.The food bank, founded in 1981, takes in donations of food and money from the government, the food industry and the public, then distributes food to Central Texas residents directly and through more than 350 agencies in its 21-county service area roughly centered on Travis and Williamson counties. (Click to view a map. )The regions north edge runs from Mills County in the west to Freestone County in the east; its south edge runs from Gillespie and Blanco counties in the west to Fayette County on the east.Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl told us by email that Doggett drew his 50 percent figure from aSept. 4, 2011, news story in theGuardian, a British newspaper, which quotes Turner saying the food bank was delivering 50 percent more food to the poor than it had done three years ago.In an interview, Turner, the food banks senior director for marketing and branding, recently told us hed given theGuardiana conservative estimate: The pounds of food distributed by the bank had actually increased 64 percent, going from 15.4 million pounds in 2007 to 25.3 million pounds in 2010. Turner noted, too, that the 2010 poundage was inflated by one-time federal stimulus aid enabling the bank to buy an additional 2.3 million pounds for the Summer Food Nutrition Program. Subtract that, and the 2010 figure becomes 23 million pounds -- up 49 percent from what the bank gave out in 2007.So, do the poundage figures mean hunger in the area shot up 49 percent or more over the past few years?J.C. Dwyer of the Texas Food Bank Network, the state association of food banks, told us pounds of food distributed generally isn't the best measure of need in a food bank's region: Its more of a metric for how were dealing with the needs, Dwyer said. A better way of gauging needs, he said, is to track the number of residents requesting food assistance.That is, the amount of food distributed doesn't necessarily reflect ups and downs in need. In the holiday season, donations and distributions surge, for instance, but that doesnt necessarily mean surges in need.Dwyer and Turner each suggested we check on changes in food demands through Hunger in America, a report commissioned every four years by Feeding America, a national charity that acts as a clearinghouse connecting food supplies to 200 food banks, including the one in Austin.There was no Hunger in America report for 2007, the first year in Doggetts statement, but thereports based on surveys in 2005 and 2009were broken down into smaller reports covering the Austin banks 21-county region: In 2005, the Capital Area bank fed an estimated 174,900 people. In 2009, the estimated number of people served was284,900 for the year, up 63 percent from those who were served in 2005. That change outstripped population growth, according toU.S. census estimates. In 2005, the 21 counties had 2,265,981 residents. By 2009, the regions population was 2,547,559 -- up 12.4 percent. Put another way, the food bank provided sustenance to nearly 8 percent of the regions residents in 2005 while about 11 percent of a greater total of residents got food in 2009.Finally, we wondered if Doggett was correct in saying the food aid went to the poor alone.Turner told us the bank does not question people who come seeking food as to their income -- if you show up, you are fed, he said, though depending on the lines that form, it could take an hour or two. However, the Hunger in America report using 2009 data states that 73 percent of the Capital Area food banks clients had incomes below the federal poverty level.Census figures for 2010, drawing on 2009 data, show that poverty in the 21-county region matched the percentage for Texas overall: Seventeen percent of residents had income below the federal poverty level.According to the United States Department of Agriculture,Dwyer told us, food insecurity across Texas -- the percentage of households at risk of missing meals because of financial pressure -- rose from 14.8 percent in the three-year period 2005-07 to 18.8 percent in 2008-10.Our conclusion: Changes in the amount of food distributed over several years, which Doggett cited, might not be the best way to gauge changes in residents needs. That said, the number of Central Texas requestors for food aid over those years outpaced regional population growth. The 63 percent increase in requestors also exceeded the 50-percent increase in food distributed that he stressed, though, contrary to his statement, not all those pounds of food went to the poor.We rate the claim Mostly True. In March 2014, the now-defunct Newshound web site published an article positing that a woman named Gemma Sheridan, who was lost in a storm in 2007 and had spent seven years on a deserted island, was finally rescued when the SOS sign she made on a beach was picked up by and spotted in images captured by Google Earth: article My hope was that perhaps a plane might fly over and see [my SOS sign], but in all my time on the island, I had not seen 1 single plane fly over. I didn't give up though. Fast forward a couple more years: I woke up 1 morning to the sound of a plane flying over me which was unusually low, I could not believe it, I thought it was a dream. I ran to the beach screaming and waving my arms like a lunatic, the plane flew over 2 or 3 more times and then dropped a small package. Inside was a radio, fresh water, food and a small medical kit. I switched on the radio and heard the first human voice for years. We talked for what seemed like an eternity, then I asked the voice on the other end "How did you find me" to which they replied "Some kid from Minnesota found your SOS sign on Google Earth" I didnt even know what Google Earth was, but I'm eternally in their debt now. The story was easily spotted as nothing more than fake news, however, for a variety of reasons: The NewsHound web site was not a news site at all, and in place of news it reproduced a number of other hoaxes and spoofs as if they were in fact real news, such as long-debunked stories about a Chinese man suing his wife over giving birth to an ugly baby, Apple paying Microsoft [sic] a $1 billion debt all in nickels, and a planetary alignment causing gravity on Earth to be negated for five minutes. ugly baby nickels gravity  The Newshound article's photograph of the SOS message supposedly created on a beach  by the stranded woman was actually a cropped and enlarged version of a picture published by Amnesty International back in 2010 to accompany an article about destructive violence in southern Kyrgyzstan and was clearly (in its original context) not snapped on a deserted island: Kyrgyzstan  article Compare the following two passages, the first from the 2013 Daily Mail article and the second from the 2014 Newshound article: It was something I was thinking about as I nibbled away at the bark of a tree with a giant clam shell for 11 days just to build a shelter. It might have been bomb-proof and waterproof in the end and it's probably still standing but if I'd had a machete, just that one tool, I would have been able to build it in a few hours.  It was two weeks before I managed to light a fire  you'll be able to tell how happy that made me when you see the show. There were eight feral goats on the island, four adults and four kids. I saw them on day one and they seemed to taunt me by coming so close I could almost touch them. I made a bow and arrow.  In films, the arrow leaves the bow at high velocity and brings down an animal in full flight but this just went twang and fell on the floor. And my spear wasn't sharp enough.  For the first 2 weeks I stayed in a mock shelter i made from debris that washed ashore. I needed to find real shelter, I found a large tree that looked perfect. I nibbled away at the bark of a tree with a giant clam shell for 11 days just to build a shelter. It might have been bomb-proof and waterproof in the end and it's probably still standing but if I'd had a machete, just that one tool, I would have been able to build it in a few hours. It was four weeks before I managed to light a fire  you have no idea how happy that made me. There were eight feral goats on the island, four adults and four kids. I saw them on day one and they seemed to taunt me by coming so close I could almost touch them. I made a bow and arrow, but this just went twang and fell on the floor. And my spear wasn't sharp enough. In August 2015 Linkbeef republished this story, simply changing a few of the details, such as switching the gender of the rescued castaway from female (Gemma Sheridan) to male (Adam Jones) and altering the length of the strandedness from seven to nine years. On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted     There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie."  Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)  In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time. Claim:  A mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola killed two Brazilian children. Status:  . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2006] One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil. Please check the experiment that has been done by mixing Coca Cola with MENTOS........ Be careful with your Coke   Origins:  Mentos, a candy that has a soft, chewy interior encased in a slightly hard shell, is no longer just for noshing on  when combined with a carbonated beverage in a closed environment that  has a small opening (think "soda bottle"), it serves to produce a frothy geyser that shoots many feet into the air, a secondary use of the product that has served to enthrall countless persons with a penchant for making things explode. The combination of any carbonated liquid and mint-flavored Mentos will rapidly produce copious amounts of foam because the candy works to disrupt the surface tension of the liquid, thereby releasing all the drink's fizz (carbon dioxide) in one surprisingly speedy whoosh. The resulting effect is quick, high, and explosive, yet what takes place is not a chemical reaction but a physical one (even though some are moved to believe the confection's gum arabic component or diet soda's aspartame has something to do with the process). As Steve Spangler, former high school science teacher turned hands-on science guru, explained: "The Mentos effect has nothing to do with the inside of the Mentos and everything to Steve Spangler do with the outside." The candy's shell is pocked with little nooks and crannies the beverage's carbon dioxide molecules are immediately drawn to, and the confection's relatively large surface area provides infinitely more such nooks and crannies (nucleation sites) than, say, an M&M would. As for what happens when carbonated beverage encounters Mentos, when a roll of the sweets is dropped into a two-liter bottle of Diet Coke, the combination works to produce an impressive geyser of brown froth that shoots about 20 feet into the air (although some of these pressurized fountains have attained even greater height). Diet cola of any manufacture is regarded as the liquid of choice for creating a "Mentos eruption" or "Mentos effect" because a cola's brown color serves to make the reaction much more starkly dramatic in all its explosive glory, and diet versions of those sodas don't leave the same sticky residue that their sugared counterparts do (an aspect well worth considering when contemplating spraying a wide area that you may afterward be called upon to clean). Plus, some folks swear diet sodas make for higher geysers. Numerous video clips of "Mentos eruptions" exist on the Internet; one needn't search all that diligently to stumble across scads of them. Not all such videos found on the Web are on the up-and-up, however, including the famed "Pepsi Girl" clip, which purports to document a demise caused by the ingestion of a mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola. Which brings us back to this article's topic, the ballyhooed death of a youngster who consumed this combination. This alert about an unnamed child in Brazil's sorry fate began circulating on the Internet in November 2006. Since no checkable details are provided in the account (the deceased is described as "a little boy" rather than by name, he died in "Brazil" rather than in any particular city or region within that country, and his demise occurred "last week" rather than on a specific date), the story should be regarded as fiction. No news accounts of such a death (in Brazil or elsewhere) have surfaced, and given the media's interest in "Mentos effects," such write-ups wouldn't have gasped their last on a jaded editor's desk because they weren't deemed sufficiently newsworthy to include in that day's edition of the local rag. Likewise, with regard to "One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil," once again the news is silent regarding such a death. However, the failure of this explosive combination of candy and soda to cause any fatalities should not be taken as a ringing endorsement of chasing down a handful of Mentos with as much pop as can be gulped. A harmless procedure it's clearly not  one look at online video clips of the force of "Mentos effect" eruptions shooting out of pop bottles should convince even the most adventurous not to risk any part of their digestive systems on such parlor tricks. Those who have disregarded common sense and tried such anyway report that the intensity of the reaction forces the mouth open, thereby releasing most of the gas and foam into the wild, as it were, rather than keeping them contained within the person. Do not try such experiments yourself though. Videos of those who have attempted such foolishness consistently show the subjects experiencing great physical distress in the aftermath of their ill-judged stunts. The "child who died from combining Mentos and Coca-Cola" story is an updating of an older legend that began in 1979. That year, the grist being run through the rumor mill included the sad tale of a misadventuring tot who had gulped soda and ingested Pop Rocks, a carbonated candy known for producing a fizzling sensation in the mouth. According to legend, said child went out with a bang. Further versions of the story specified the deceased youngster was the taciturn "Mikey" of LIFE cereal commercials. Mikey Once again there hadn't been such a child, but that did little to slow the rumor's spread. The gruesome appeal of the combusted tot story kept the legend in circulation long after it had been repeatedly debunked and dismissed. Barbara "fizzical attraction" Mikkelson Last updated:  9 November 2006     Sources: