Did a Republican Group Post Anti-Trump Billboards in Minnesota?
An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018.
On March 22, 2022, we began investigating a crypto scam on a Facebook page that posed as Crypto.com, a cryptocurrency exchange company, and asked for donations for Ukraine. The Facebook page was named Crypto.com/Nft. However, the company named Crypto.com had nothing to do with it. crypto scam Facebook Crypto.com Ukraine Crypto.com/Nft We notified Meta by email and were told by a company spokesperson that the page would soon be coming down. Meta is Facebook's parent company. Meta The person or people managing the page bought paid advertising on Facebook in order to run the scam. The ad was approved, and was displayed for at least three days. scam The ad The page was created on March 18, and the ad began running the next day. We noted that the same ad was still active as of March 22.  The "Ad Library" for the crypto scam Facebook page showed that it had been active for at least three days.  By March 22, the page had racked up 228 likes and 5,368 followers. The post that was created for the Facebook ad had also been liked nearly 1,000 times. The ad from the Crypto.com/Nft Facebook page asked for donations for Ukraine and provided a specific wallet address. It appeared like this: Ukraine  The scammers pretended to be with Crypto.com in order to execute their plan.  It read as follows: Crypto.com would like to support Ukraine with 100k USDT together with its community!Join us! Every amount you donate in Ethereum we top up to 100k USDT. Donate ETH only to0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854 We will exchange it to USDT while transferring funds to Ukraine.#ukraine #ETHEREUM Once again, this is a scam. The page was created four days before we filed this report. Also, it claimed to be affiliated with Crypto.com, even though it was not. Both of these were red flags. The requested amount of "100k USDT" in the ad is equivalent to about $100,000. According to Blockchain.com, as of March 22, 0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854, the wallet address mentioned in the ad, had received around $32,279.94 in funds since April 2021. It's unclear how much of those funds were brought in based on other scams that had nothing to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which began in late February. equivalent According to Blockchain.com Russia's invasion of Ukraine In previous reporting, we exposed four other crypto scams, all of which were hosted by Facebook or Instagram. We also have seen a handful of others pop up as paid ads. four other crypto scams Instagram We alerted Crypto.com about the scam Facebook page. A company spokesperson said that the address used by the scammers was not a Crypto.com wallet address and that no Crypto.com account holders had transferred funds to it. To make donations to legitimate organizations to help the people in Ukraine, we recommend visiting our previous article that documented four good causes that are accepting funds. Ukraine article 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 Shortly after this story was published on March 22, 2022, a Facebook company spokesperson confirmed to us by email that the page would soon be coming down. One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017. In March 2017, an assortment of dubious online advertisements masquerading as People articles declared that Joanna Gaines, costar of the HGTV home improvement series "Fixer Upper," is suing to break her contract. The ads claimed that Gaines, who hosts the show with her husband, wanted to leave "Fixer Upper" to start her own cosmetics line: declared Joanna Gaines Fixer Upper   HGTV has had enough. Joanna has been showing up late to the construction sites as well as the filmings and now have found out Joanna has been leading a double life. Her disinterest in the show "Fixer Upper" with her hilarious husband Chip Gaines has fallen to the wayside due to her side business. Here we reveal the truth behind what this side business is really all about... The star of HGTVs hit TV show, Joanna Gaines, has shocked us all and 2017 has only just started. In recent developments, the reality star revealed that she just started a side beauty business because she is a serial entrepreneur and it's just in her nature. She never expected it to grow as fast as it did. HGTV and the network as a whole was not happy when they found out about this (to say the least) and they made Joanna decide on which direction she was going to go. Being so turned off by the reaction of HGTV and their "power move" she decided to pursue her new skin care line.   The article went on to promote VLamorous, a purported "anti-aging serum."  Another version of the scam hawks a product allegedly created by Gaines called Bella Serata Anti-Aging Serum (the text is otherwise identical). version The ads prompted a spate of rumors that Gaines is abandoning the popular TV show and questions from concerned viewers. Gaines responded to these in a 21 April 2017 blog post entitled "Don't Believe Everything You Read": post At the end of the day, weve learned its impossible to control all the information thats out there. We care about you guys, and the best way we can protect you from false information is to direct you to our official channels. Follow our social media accounts, ... sign up for our newsletter, and keep up with our blog. These are the spots where well tell you about our new partnerships, projects, and even personal news. Always remember: if youre reading big, exciting news about us, and we did not confirm it on our official sites, then proceed with caution. We are so thankful for your supportwe wouldnt be here without you! And just in case you were wondering, YES! We are currently filming season 5 of the show. No! I am not getting into the business of facial creams. And No! We are not expecting baby #5. And no worries, believing some of these stories happens to the best of us. In summary, dont buy the facial cream, friends. As often happens, however, the false reports continued to propagate via social media, eliciting this taciturn tweet from Chip Gaines a few weeks later:  tweet No https://t.co/mWxcQAzDud https://t.co/mWxcQAzDud  Chip Gaines (@chippergaines) May 8, 2017 May 8, 2017 However, just shy of five months later, the Gaineses announced on their blog that they would be quitting Fixer Upper at the end of season five, which is scheduled to begin airing on the HGTV network in November 2017: announced It is with both sadness and expectation that we share the news that season 5 of Fixer Upper will be our last. While we are confident that this is the right choice for us, it has for sure not been an easy one to come to terms with. Our family has grown up alongside yours, and we have felt you rooting us on from the other side of the screen. How bittersweet to say goodbye to the very thing that introduced us all in the first place. They did not specify their reasons for leaving the show. Gaines, Chip and Joanna."Our Last Season."
MagnoliaMarket.com.26 September 2017. Gaines, Joanna. "Don't Believe Everything You Read."
 MagnoliaMarket.com. 21 April 2017. IMDb.com. "Fixer Upper."
 Visited 9 May 2017. Update [26 November 2017]: Added information about Chip and Joanna Gaines's announcement that they will be leaving "Fixer Upper" at the end of its fifth season. In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. 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: In September 2018, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $75 off any purchase of $80 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain:  Later in July 2019, an $80 version also made the rounds:  These posts were the latest iterations of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.   Publix has previously taken to social media to warn customers that these coupon offers are not authorized promotions and to advise customers not to visit sites promoting them: social media  These fake coupon offers are a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code: Instead, they were asked to fill out a survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users are also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau listed key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.  Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.  When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card."
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014.
 9 July 2019: Updated to add a new $80 coupon version of the Publix Facebook scam. If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True. In mid-June 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes posted to social media that purportedly showed a wind turbine that had melted in scorching Texas heat (some versions sent in by readers claimed the turbine was melted in Nebraska). Texas heat   National Weather Service Houston tweeted an image of the turbine in question on June 14, 2021. The turbine, located in Wadsworth, a community southwest of Houston, was damaged by powerful winds during a storm in the area.  Claims about turbines failing during extreme weather events in Texas have been a topic of interest in the past. In February 2021, conservative commentators and legislators falsely claimed that frozen turbines played a major role in the loss of power to millions of Texans as they experienced record cold temperatures. falsely claimed As we reported at that time, half of Texas' wind turbines went offline during the cold snap, but only accounted for a small fraction of the power outage, which was mostly caused by failure of systems producing power from natural gas, coal, and nuclear sources. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In December 2021, a number of social media users expressed confusion and skepticism over a series of books that had been published on Amazon about the new COVID-19 omicron variant. How was it possible, these people wondered, for someone to research, write, and publish a book about a strain of COVID-19 that had been discovered just days or weeks earlier.  social media users expressed confusion   Other social media users commented: How can there be so many books knowing all about the #Omicron variant when we only found out about it 2 weeks ago? Amazing how there are 30 books available on Amazon on the Omicron variant when it was just named Nov 26,this one in particular was published on that date..almost like it was planned Go to Amazon and search "Understanding Omicron Variant" How can scientists do any kind of reputable work, write a book, have it peer reviewed, have it proofed, published AND printed in a couple WEEKS? Can you say scam? There are truly a number of books on Amazon about the omicron variant that were published within days of the announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the new strain had been identified. This isn't proof that the pandemic was "planned," or that it is a "scam." Rather, it's proof of just how quick and easy it is to self-publish a book on Amazon.  Self-publishing authors can submit their books to Amazon in as little as 5 minutes and can see their books up for sale the following day.  Amazon in as little as 5 minutes The social media users quoted above all expressed skepticism that a book about something as complicated as the omicron variant could be researched, written, and edited in a span of just a few days. This skepticism is rightfully placed. The omicron variant books on Amazon that were published in December 2021 likely did not go through rigorous research, writing, or editing phases. Unlike a scholarly journal where material has to go though peer review, anybody can self-publish just about anything on Amazon. The material can contain an infinite amount of typos (no editing), the content doesn't have to be factual (no research), and in some cases the text can be artificially generated or plagiarized (no writing). In other words, just because a book exists on Amazon doesn't mean its content is worth reading.  In March 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon was flooded with self-published books about the illness. These books were shoddily put together and often contained plagiarized content. The Guardian reported: Guardian reported As the coronavirus spreads around the world, it is not only health professionals and politicians who are being kept busy. Amazon has been flooded with badly put together, often plagiarised guides to combatting the virus. The retailing giant has already been removing tens of thousands of listings from bad actors attempting to artificially raise prices on items such as face masks and hand sanitiser. Now it is fighting a losing battle against the writers rushing out self-published books to profit from coronavirus fears. Generally shorter than 100 pages, dozens have been published in the last few weeks, promising worried readers ways to prevent or avoid the virus. On Amazon.co.uk on Thursday morning, the top results returned for books about coronavirus included Corbi Yangs Coronavirus, which promised to answer how this virus was identified and what measures have been taken up till now. Running to 44 pages, much of the writing was lifted directly from web pages. While social media users were skeptical of the rash of books published on Amazon about the omicron variant, there was one title that drew special attention. According to social media posts, a book by "Dr. Teresa Bishop" titled "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: All You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed" was copyrighted in 2020, nearly a year before the omicron variant emerged.    How was this possible? How was a book about the omicron variant copyrighted before the emergence of the omicron variant? We reached out to Amazon for some specifics about this title and we will update this article if more information becomes available. For the moment, here's what we know: announced by WHO nonsensical sentences International Standard Book Number database Copyright Public Records Portal   This title is no longer available on Amazon. A few days after this book was removed, Bishop published a similarly titled book "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: Everything You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed Kindle Edition." That book claims a copyright date of 2021.  As Coronavirus Spreads, Hastily Produced Books Capitalize on Fear. Undark Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/. Flood, Alison. Amazon Flooded with Self-Published Coronavirus Books. The Guardian, 12 Mar. 2020. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/12/amazon-flooded-with-self-published-coronavirus-books. Matsakis, Louise. Amazon Quietly Removes Some Dubious Coronavirus Books. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-quietly-removes-coronavirus-books/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Self-Published Book on Omicron Was Not Copyrighted before Variant Was Discovered. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/20/facebook-posts/self-published-book-omicron-was-not-copyrighted-va/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Update on Omicron. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Claim:  Atari buried millions of unsold E.T. game cartridges in a New Mexico desert landfill. LEGEND Origins:  In 1982, Warner Communications could honestly claim to own a goose that laid golden eggs. Its money-producing fowl was called Atari, a video game company it purchased for $28 million in 1976  which had since burgeoned into a $2 billion concern.  In the early 1980s Atari owned 80% of the video game market, it accounted for 70% of Warner's operating profits, and in the fourth quarter of 1982 the Wall Street "whisper number" concerning Atari's expected   earnings predicted a 50% increase over the previous year. The goose died at 3:04 P.M. EST on 7 December 1982, when Atari reported only a 10% to 15% increase in expected earnings, not the 50% figure so many people had been counting on.  By the end of the following day Warner stock had plummeted to two-thirds of  its previous value, and Warner closed out the quarter with its profits down a mind-boggling 56%.  (Even worse, a minor scandal erupted when it was revealed that Atari's president and CEO had sold 5,000 shares of Warner stock a mere 23 minutes before announcing Atari's disappointing sales figures.)  Atari racked up over half a billion dollars ($536 million) in losses in 1983, and by the end of 1984 Warner had sold the company. What accounted for the sudden death of Warner's prized goose?  A number of interrelated factors brought about its fatal illness:  Most of Atari's top programmers, disenchanted with the lack of respect, compensation, and freedom they were afforded under Warner management, left to work elsewhere.  Atari was selling its game consoles as cheaply as possible and expecting to make its profits from sales of game cartridges, but other companies such as Imagic and Activision (founded by some of the disenchanted Atari programmers mentioned above) cut into Atari's sales by creating their own cartridges for Atari consoles (and their games were far superior to what Atari itself was producing).  Atari's VCS game console was several years old by 1982, and its established customer base was being eroded by newer, better systems such as Mattel's Intellivision and Coleco's ColecoVision (especially when those systems started offering adapters that allowed customers to play VCS game cartridges without needing to own Atari consoles).  Even worse, the "next generation" system Atari finally unveiled in late 1982 ,the Atari 5200, was a huge disappointment (in part because its joysticks were poorly designed and difficult to use, and because it was incompatible with the huge existing base of VCS cartridges).  Atari's home consumer division had garnered huge profits by producing home versions of popular arcade games created by its own coin-op division (Asteroids) or licensed from other manufacturers (Taito's Space Invaders and Namco's Pac-Man), but let the licensing of that year's smash arcade hit, Donkey Kong, slip away from them.  (The license for Donkey Kong was instead snapped up by Coleco, who probably could not have successfully launched its competing ColecoVision game system without it.) The first signs of the goose's fatal illness came with Atari's Pac-Man cartridge.  Atari was so sure its home version of the world's most popular arcade game would reach new sales heights that it manufactured 12 million Pac-Man cartridges in 1982 (even though at the time only about 10 million people owned and used Atari VCS consoles), counting on the game's popularity to spur additional sales of the VCS.  With most of Atari's best in-house programmers long since having fled the company, the result was a colossal disappointment.  Pac-Man's animation was jerky, its moving images flickered annoyingly, and the Pac-Man character produced only a grating "bong" sound that was nothing like the arcade version's amusing sound effects.  Atari did eventually sell 7.7 million copies of Pac-Man, earning almost $200 million in gross profit sales for the company, but Atari was still stuck with millions of unsold Pac-Man game cartridges, and the poor quality of the game in comparison to the arcade version seriously tarnished Atari's image among consumers. As Goldberg and Vendel noted of the Pac-Man issue in their history of the company, Atari, Inc.: Business Is Fun: The result backfired on Atari by causing consumers to behave differently when purchasing games. There was already a growing mass of new low quality third party 'spam' titles on the market, and now with the experience of from rushing to buy Pac-Man for a premium and getting disappointed at its look, the tipping point for a new buyer environment was created. An environment where people would no longer blindly rush out to buy a newly released game, but would cautiously wait for reviews or feedback from others who'd bought the game. As a result, games purchases appeared to be curtailed in the second half of 1982, causing another new complication that sales and marketing would have to grasp and account for. If one game cartridge could be selected as the symbol of the sudden demise of Atari's golden goose, however, it would have to be the ill-fated E.T.: The Extraterrestrial game. Steve Ross, the head of Warner Communications, made a deal with Steven Spielberg to produce a home video game version of Spielberg's blockbuster E.T. film. Basing a video game on a movie rather than an established arcade hit or a tested game premise and expecting it to sell simply because of the popularity of the film might have been a questionable enough decision on its own (although Atari did enjoy moderate success with its video game version of Spielberg's previous   blockbuster, Raiders of the Lost Ark), but on top of that Ross forked over a whopping $21 million to acquire the rights to the title, committing Atari to sell a whopping 4 million cartridges just to recoup their costs.  Moreover, Ross made the deal in late July 1982 and insisted the game be ready in time for the Christmas sales season, leaving only a five week timeframe (rather than a more typical six months) for the E.T. game to be conceived, programmed, debugged, and put into production.  The sheer awfulness of the finished product was unprecedented.  Atari rushed E.T. through development in a matter of weeks to get it onto the market in time for Christmas, and the result was something many consumers found to be a virtually unplayable game with a dull plot and crummy graphics in which frustrated players spent most of their time leading the E.T. character around in circles to prevent him from falling into pits.  Atari produced 5 million E.T. cartridges, and according to Atari's then-president and CEO, "nearly all of them came back."  That statement was a bit of an exaggeration, but Atari was once again stuck with millions of unsold cartridges for a game that moved far fewer units than were produced: In total, five million copies of  E.T. were produced. Initially, only 500,000 games were sold, with another million eventually joining the sales. Out of the five million E.T. carts that would ship out to distributors, a staggering three and a half million games would be returned in total, many still in the distributor boxes; the retailers hadn't even sold enough to break open additional distributor shipping boxes to require a restock. [T]here were three and a half million unsold games and in the end, the  E.T. licensing deal was a complete loss for Atari. In a bout of hubris at the end of 1981, Atari had told its distributors to place their orders for 1982 all at once.  The distributors, anticipating another strong sales year, ordered aggressively, but when 1982 sales didn't meet expectations, those distributors were stuck with a lot of unsold Atari game cartridge inventory, which they returned to Atari in droves.  When ordinary distributor returns were added to the millions of unsold Pac-Man  cartridges and more millions of useless E.T. cartridges, Atari found itself with tons of unsellable merchandise to dispose of, which led to the rumor that Atari buried millions of E.T. cartridges in a landfill in the New Mexico desert. There is no question that Atari dumped and buried a whole lot of stuff in Alamogordo, New Mexico, in September 1983, as the New York Times (and other sources) reported at the time: With the video game business gone sour, some manufacturers have been dumping their excess game cartridges on the market at depressed prices. Now Atari Inc., the leading video game manufacturer, has taken dumping one step farther. The company has dumped 14 truckloads of discarded game cartridges and other computer equipment at the city landfill in Alamogordo, N.M. Guards kept reporters and spectators away from the area as workers poured concrete over the dumped merchandise. An Atari spokesman said the equipment came from Atari's plant in El Paso, Tex., which used to make videogame cartridges but has now been converted to recycling scrap. Atari lost $310.5 million in the second quarter, largely because of a sharp drop in video game sales. Due to the all the bad publicity over Atari's recent negative experiences with its Pac-Man and E.T. games, when news of the company's New Mexico landfill disposal became public knowledge many people assumed that those truckloads of discarded material included nothing but millions and millions of unsold E.T. cartridges (with perhaps some of those millions of unsold Pac-Man carts thrown in as well), all shamefully and furtively buried by Atari in an attempt to keep those embarrassingly colossal failures out of sight.  Exactly what Atari buried in that New Mexico landfill remains a subject of dispute, and in recent years various sources have challenged the notion that what Atari dumped there was millions of unsold E.T. game cartridges (or other unsold game titles).  According Goldberg and Vendel, the New Mexico site was actually used for disposal of a relatively small amount of unused and faulty stock and parts for cartridges, consoles, and computers from the company's El Paso plant, which was being retooled and automated to focus on the of manufacture of game consoles and home computers rather than the production of game cartridges (the latter operation being shifted to Asia).  While Atari did bury some millions of units of unsold game cartridge overstock, that (unpublicized) action took place near the company's headquarters in California, not in New Mexico: Manufacturing game cartridges had been a large part of the El Paso plant, but the new retooling left no room for them in this time of overstock ... The resulting clearance of truckloads of faulty and unused stock starting on September 22nd [1983] resulted in anything but positive press for the company, though, as it seemed Atari just couldn't catch a break from the media. Under cover of the night, several semi-trailers convoyed out of the [El Paso] plant to drive about an hour and a half south west. They were bound for a city dump in Alamogordo, New Mexico, chosen because New Mexico had a state law forbidding scavenging of landfills. The landfill was run by Browning Ferris  Industries (BFI), who contracted with the city and was making $300-$500 a truckload from Atari, all to cover their dumped contents with garbage and dirt and then steamroll them. [Three days later] Atari had already dumped eight truckloads when promising BFI only three a week, and still more were on the way. But that wasn't the worst of it; the public had found out. First it was the locals, who when word got out that Atari was dumping lots of cartridges, consoles and computers in their backyard, started sneaking into the dump to pilfer what they could. The hardware may have been crushed beyond use, but many of the games were still salvageable. It was when those games started showing up around town, titles like E.T., Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, that the local media picked up on the story.  Atari had brought in a security guard to watch over the site to stop the pilfering, but it did little to stop the prying eyes of the media, and by [September 26th] the national press was all over the story. This innocent dumping, a miniscule amount when compared to the entire size of Atari's actual overstock across the country, was done as an afterthought. However, thanks to article titles like UPI's "City dump gobbles Pacman," the dumping was fast becoming a symbol of the industry's problems. [Y]ou don't pour concrete over unusable scrap, [but] that's exactly what Atari did on September 29th, which only further fueled the interest over the dumping. Around 14 truckloads had been dumped before the PR nightmare was over. Yes, this is the very happening that gave rise to the myth of the supposed dumping of almost 3.5 million E.T. cartridges in the Alamogordo dump. Most of the overstock of game cartridges languishing in warehouses around the U.S., comprised of a wide breadth of Atari's home titles, were indeed disposed of  that's where myth meets reality. But this occurred in a dump in Sunnyvale [California]. In May 2013 Alamogordo's City Commission approved a deal for a Canada-based film production company (Fuel Industries) to excavate the Atari landfill site and produce a documentary about the legend of the buried E.T. cartridges.  That excavation was scheduled to take place on 26 April 2014 and to be open to the public: excavation Become a part of gamer history. Unearth the truth behind the ultimate urban legend. We're excited to announce that the excavation of the long-rumored "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game burial site will occur on April 26, 2014 and will be open to the public. Spectators are invited to watch the team uncover the infamous Atari game cartridge grave.  The Atari Corporation  faced with overwhelmingly negative response to the "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game  allegedly disposed of millions of unsold game cartridges by burying them in the small town of Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1983. Fuel Entertainment took an interest in the legend, and in December 2013, with help from local garbage contractor Joe Lewandowski, acquired the exclusive rights to excavate the Alamogordo landfill. Fuel Entertainment brought the opportunity to Xbox Entertainment Studios, and now, as part of a documentary series, the team will excavate the legendary New Mexico landfill to reveal the true story of Atari's bizarre burial.  Director Zak Penn will be documenting the dig and the events around it. In addition to fans and media, a variety of people tied to the dig, video game, and film will be in attendance  including "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" video game designer Howard Scott Warshaw, a team of archeologists, and representatives from Xbox Entertainment Studios. We hope you'll join us as we get to the bottom of one of gaming's biggest mysteries. A lucky handful of fans could even be interviewed for the film. See you in Alamogordo! On that date, news accounts reported the recovery of "hundreds" (not millions) of E.T. game cartridges from the Alamagordo landfill: A documentary film production company has found buried in a New Mexico landfill hundreds of the Atari "E.T." game cartridges that some call the worst video game ever made. Film director Zak Penn showed one "E.T." cartridge retrieved from the site and said that hundreds more were found in the mounds of trash and dirt scooped by a backhoe. About 200 residents and game enthusiasts gathered in southeastern New Mexico to watch backhoes and bulldozers dig through the concrete-covered landfill in search of up to a million discarded copies of "E.T. The Extraterrestrial" that the game's maker wanted to hide forever. "I feel pretty relieved and psyched that they actually got to see something," said Penn as members of the production team sifted through the mounds of trash, pulling out boxes, games and other Atari products.  Whatever the answer, it seems Atari sent its goose away not with the traditional gold watch, but with a pair of cement overshoes. Additional information:       Atari's E.T.: The Extraterrestrial  (AtariAge)   Last updated:  26 April 2014    Goldberg, Marty and Curt Vendel.  Atari Inc.: Business Is Fun.   Carmel, NY: Syzygy Company Press, 2012.  ISBN 978-0-9855974-0-5.    Kent, Steven L.  The First Quarter: A 25-Year History of Video Games.   Bothell, WA: BWD Press, 2000.  ISBN 0-9704755-0-0.    Llorca, Juan Carlos.  Diggers Find Atari's E.T. Games in Landfill.   Associated Press.  26 April 2014.    The New York Times.  "Atari Parts Are Dumped."    28 September 1983  (p. D4).