Is Whataburger Changing Their Colors?
In June 2019, the Chicago investment firm Chicago BDT Capital Partners acquired a majority stake in the Texas-based restaurant chain Whataburger. The news was unsettling to some Texans who feared that their beloved burger joint would undergo some unwanted changes: acquired Ok, I say we all chip in and buy Whataburger back. Make honey butter chicken biscuits available all day, add kolaches to the menu and change nothing else. Especially not the ketchup. https://t.co/HadutHXJ9l https://t.co/HadutHXJ9l  JJ Watt (@JJWatt) June 14, 2019 June 14, 2019  Shortly after this news broke, an image purportedly showing a screenshot of a message posted to Whataburger's Twitter account -- in which the restaurant chain announced that they were changing their colors from orange and white to blue, black, and white in honor of Chicago's baseball teams -- began to circulate on social media: circulate social media   This was not a genuine tweet from Whataburger: It does not appear anywhere on the company's Twitter timeline, and we were unable to locate any archived versions of this supposed message. timeline Furthermore, the Whataburger Twitter account has responded to several curious social media users to inform them that the above-displayed image is fake. In other words, Whataburger is not changing their signature orange color to blue, black, and white in honor of the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox:   The social media post announcing that Whataburger was changing their colors was fake, but the following social media post from Whataburger assuring fans that they will continue to make Texas proud is real: social media post   Fernandez, Manny.  "Whataburger Got Sold to Chicago. Texas Is Flipping Out."
  The New York Times.  20 June 2019.
On July 10, 2019, we examined a claim holding that Google was "scrubbing" its search results of any pictures showing President Bill Clinton together with convicted sex offender and billionaire/financier Jeffrey Epstein. While this rumor was false (Google's search results were not notably different than those of Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Yandex, or Bing), we were left with one unanswered question: Are there any photos of Epstein and Clinton? false After all, Clinton flew on the private plane of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who was arrested again in July 2019 on new charges related to child-sex-prostitution. The two were also both present at a "small dinner party" in 1995 hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention. It seems reasonable to believe that someone at some point took a photograph of these two well-known public figures together.  flew child-sex-prostitution On July 22, 2019, Josh Rosner, the managing director of independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co, alerted us to his tweet containing a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 issue of Vanity Fair: Josh Rosner published Disturbing! The #press wiped all pictures of @BillClinton & #JeffreyEpstein from the #internet. Even @VanityFair who published this image in 03 from their #sex(?) trip to Brunei scrubbed it. #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai #press @BillClinton #JeffreyEpstein #internet @VanityFair #sex #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai  joshua rosner (@JoshRosner) July 22, 2019 July 22, 2019  Again, no evidence exists that this image was "wiped" from the Internet. In fact, this image is available online in Vanity Fair's digital archive (subscription required). digital archive This photograph was published in a March 2003 article by Vicky Ward entitled, "The Talented Mr. Epstein." The photograph's caption: "Epstein with President Clinton in Brunei, 2002." published   One possible explanation as to why this photograph doesn't pop up in search engines is that Vanity Fair didn't publish it as a standalone image. Rather, it is embedded in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of the magazine. While we're not in the business of offering predictions, we'd bet that this image will start finding its way into Google Images and other image-based search engines in the near future (especially if more outlets pick up and publish stories including this image). Clinton is mentioned three other times in the Vanity Fair story; each iteration is reproduced below (emphasis ours): Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. VICKY WARD explores Epstein's investment career, his ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past. In addition to the town house, Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch which he named "Zorro." "It makes the town house look like a shack," Epstein has said. He also owns Little St. James, a 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the main house is currently being renovated by Edward Tuttle, a designer of the Aman resorts. There is also a $6.8 million house in Palm Beach, Florida, and a fleet of aircraft: a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, replete with trading room, on which Epstein recently flew President Clinton, actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, Lew Wasserman's grandson, Casey Wasserman, and a few others, on a mission to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development in Africa. Epstein is known about town as a man who loves womenlots of them, mostly young. Model types have been heard saying they are full of gratitude to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret girls. One young woman recalls being summoned by Ghislaine Maxwell to a concert at Epstein's town house, where the women seemed to outnumber the men by far. "These were not women you'd see at Upper East Side dinners," the woman recalls. "Many seemed foreign and dressed a little bizarrely." This same guest also attended a cocktail party thrown by Maxwell that Prince Andrew attended, which was filled, she says, with young Russian models. "Some of the guests were horrified," the woman says. "He's reckless," says a former business associate, "and he's gotten more so. Money does that to you. He's breaking the oath he made to himselfthat he would never do anything that would expose him in the media. Right now, in the wake of the publicity following his trip with Clinton, he must be in a very difficult place." In 2002, around the time that this photograph was taken, Clinton told New York Magazine via a spokesperson that, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service and combating H.I.V./AIDS." New York Magazine Clinton once had a relationship with Epstein and even took multiple trips on his private plane. However, the former president said that he hasn't had contact with Epstein for a decade and knows nothing about the crimes the latter has been accused or convicted of: Statement on Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l  Angel Urea (@angelurena) July 8, 2019 July 8, 2019  Clinton, of course, isn't the only high-profile politician connected to Epstein. U.S. President Donald Trump has also been photographed with Epstein.  photographed Gold, Michael.  "Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They Connected?"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Thomas Jr., Landon.  "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery."
  NY Magazine.  28 October 2002. Ward, Vicy.  "The Talented Mr. Epstein."
  Vanity Fair.  March 2003. The Oracle of Omaha is still for Obama. So the president claimed on60 Minutes, interrupting interviewer Steve Kroft to tout the continued support of Warren Buffett, the Omaha-based stock-picker extraordinaire. Your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response, Kroft said to Obama. A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your... And Warren still does support me, Obama interjected. But I think that, understand, Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank. Indeed Buffett, who endorsed Obama during the campaign, did explicitly say during a three-hour interview March 9 with CNBC that he still supports Obama. I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, Buffett said early in the interview.Buffett did criticize Obama's handling of the banking crisis, saying that a bank that's going to go broke should be allowed to go broke, as long as the depositors are protected. (Obama's approach has leaned toward giving the banks more bailout money in some form rather than letting them fail and having the government take them over. )But Buffett's primary concern was that Obama wasn't communicating clearly with the public about struggling banks. The right answer for me (to the banking crisis) is the president to clarify things as only he can, because you have heard so many different things, he said. He is the commander in chief on this, and it has to be clarified ... because if people aren't clear, they're going to be confused. And if they're going to be confused, they are going to be scared stiff. And that has to end.It's not surprising Buffett would want Obama to focus on the financial crisis  it has cost Buffett $25 billion. That's how much of his $62 billion fortune he lost in the past year, as shares of his holding company Berkshire Hathaway fell nearly 50 percent,Forbesreports. That knocked Buffett off his perch as the world's richest man, to No. 2 behind Bill Gates.Toward the end of the three-hour interview, Buffett reiterated his support for Obama. He is the right president, Buffett said. He's very, very smart. He's got, I think, exactly the right goals. He's articulate and I  you know, he will be the right person to be the commander in chief in this economic crisis.So clearly Obama was on solid ground touting Buffett's continued support. We find this claim to be True. On 27 June 2015, a Facebook post purportedly made by actress Jennifer Aniston comparing gay rights activists to soldiers caused a stir on social media: post  Within a few days, Aniston's supposed Facebook post had been shared more than 200,000 times, with many users who encountered it vowing to boycott the actress' movies over her alleged viewpoint.  The above-displayed post, however, was not made by Jennifer Aniston. The "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page is not affiliated in any way with Jennifer Aniston the actress. Similar to other "like farming" scams, this "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page employs sexy photos of the actress, inspirational quotes, and other shareable content in order to increase user engagement. The site's purpose, however, has nothing to do with presenting visitors first-hand information about the actress.  (Indeed, most of the links provided on this Facebook simply point to videos uploaded to YouTube by user Sam00962.) like farming In fact, the substance of the post attributed to Aniston came from "DV Dan," the admin of the Dysfunctional Veterans web site, who wrote of it: Dysfunctional Veterans   With the major publicity of the Iwo Jima/gay pride flag comparison photo going viral, it is a disappointment to me that, what appeared to be Jennifer Anistons account is receiving all the attention from a powerful statement stolen from my original post. It is why, when the post was stolen by the owner of this Jennifer Aniston account, I made the comment that I did not appreciate the post being taken from my page  DV Dan  without any credit. As the statement was made by myself, an actual U.S. Marine Veteran, it would have been nice to direct that attention to a much higher cause than gossip. Such as the fight we continue to face daily in the Veteran community. Our goal with Dysfunctional Veterans, DV Farm, DV Radio, and DV TV is to bring awareness to the estimated 23 a day. Suicide prevention and veteran support is something that actually needs the national attention behind it, not the color of a celebrity dress. As I made the post I did based on how I felt the depiction of the pride flag being raised in that manner disrespected the Marines and Navy Corpsman that fought, bled, and gave the ultimate sacrifice during WWII. The original post had been pulled due to constant reporting of it, and I was getting messages from veterans who felt offended by the depiction. They were offended due to not reading my words condemning the picture, they just saw the image and, like myself, knew it was wrong. I will state again that I have nothing against the LGBT community, however as it is their right to publicly call out what they find offensive to their cause. It is my same right to express what I feel is offensive to the veteran community. As it is also their right to portray Art in any fashion, there should have been more respect and consideration given toward the Men and Women that protect those constitutional rights. You may not agree with my views on this issue, however, one should not be hypocritical in the ways others express their views. Hate can be a two way street, not one with a one way sign. I hope the real Jennifer Aniston will see this message and contact me as she is gaining a lot of support for my statement. It would be a nice gesture to show her what we do within the DV community to bring both humor and seriousness into Veteran lives through the Dysfunctional Veterans Facebook Page.  Along with that, it would be great to show her how we work with Battle In Distress to combat the 23-a-day and reduce that number down to 0. Since at least 2021, internet users have been admiring an impressive, but fake image purporting to show the core of the Milky Way galaxy framed by Karnak, an ancient Egyptian temple complex, northeast of the city of Luxor.  Here is one example, posted to Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:  The image above is not a real representation of the view into the heavens from Karnak in Egypt. It was debunked in 2021 by Juan Carlos Muoz-Mateos, media officer for the European Southern Observatory, a research facility based in Germany. The moon in the image is too large and is transparent, and the core of the Milky Way isn't visible from Karnak's location, Munoz wrote in a Twitter thread explaining how he could tell the image was faked. debunked transparent   We were unable to locate the original version of the image or its creator, but the earliest instances we found of the picture online was 2017. It's been shared in various forums like a Reddit channel dedicated to "shamelessly stolen" images. shamelessly stolen In an email sent to Snopes, Munoz said that such fake but visually appealing space/science images often crop up on content-scraping social media feeds, which can be identified by features like generic but easily searchable names like "curiosity" or "black hole." The images shared are most often uncredited. "Their bios say things like 'DM for credit/removal' or 'credit goes to the respective owner,' Munoz observed. "Another common question is why this matters, whats the harm with these accounts," Munoz wrote. "Besides the obvious problem of sharing wrong information, these accounts often link to fishy websites riddled with ads, or they're follower farms that are later sold and renamed." It may take time, but it's worthwhile to report them and get them removed from social media platforms, Munoz added. In the summer of 2020, a new nationwide wave of protests against racial injustice and police brutality was accompanied by a rising campaign to substantially divert funding away from police forces, as well as to replace existing models of local law enforcement. The movement, referred to in shorthand by the somewhat imprecise phrase "defund the police" faced intense opposition from some right-leaning quarters, especially supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump. As a result, companies and organizations faced condemnation for their supposed association with the "defund the police" movement, and in July, readers asked Snopes to examine one such claim.  condemnation A widely shared meme read: meme "Starbucks says Defund the Police. Let's defund Starbucks. Ask all friends and family not to be Starbucks patrons. Dunkin coffee is just as good!"   We could find no evidence of any instance in which Starbucks, as a company, called for police forces to be defunded or abolished, promoted or supported the "defund the police" campaign, or indeed used the words "defund the police" (or similar phrases) in its public utterances or on its social media accounts. As a result, we are at a loss as to the origins of the false claim that "Starbucks says defund the police." The company has on several occasions articulated support for the Black Lives Matter movement and opposition to racial injustice, but that is clearly not the same as supporting the "defund the police" campaign.  several occasions articulated support Black Lives Matter We found no evidence that Starbucks supports the "defund the police" campaign. By contrast, we found ample evidence of the company's partnering with various police forces as part of the "Coffee with a Cop" initiative, which encourages police officers and members of the public to meet in their local Starbucks caf with the aim of creating understanding, rather than hostility, between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police.  Coffee with a Cop It's worth noting that that initiative seeks to repair and improve relations between police forces and local communities, especially people of color within those communities. As such, it is actually rather antithetical to the "defund the police" movement, whose proponents often argue that those relationships are damaged beyond repair and efforts to reform policing have failed and should no longer be attempted.  argue Mac Guill, Dan. "Has Ford Motor Co. Donated Millions to 'Defund the Police'?"
 Snopes.com. 10 July 2020. Starbucks. "Black Lives Matter: Starbucks Update on Standing Against Racial Injustice."
 12 June 2020. Claim:  Senator John Kerry referred to a Secret Service agent as a "son of a bitch."    . Origins:  Prior to February 2004, Senator John Kerry was the polar opposite of a "household name"  very few who didn't follow politics had even heard of him, let alone felt they had some sense of the man. Yet his emergence as the Democratic Party's front runner for the presidential nomination has stirred interest in the Senator, leaving a great many folks wondering what sort of fellow he is.  Because few Americans will have a chance to make the Senator's acquaintance before being called upon to cast their votes in the November   2004 election, most will have to base their assessments of his character upon accounts given by others. Yet sorting fact from rumor is often a difficult task in that all too often the stories that appear to offer startling insight can't be proved or disproved; they exist as unverifiable anecdotes (e.g., the rumor that John Kerry ate some long-suffering pilot's pizza). pizza However, every now and then a story comes along that the news agencies have vetted. Which brings us to the "son of a bitch" incident of 18 March 2004. While snowboarding in Ketchum, Idaho, Senator Kerry was knocked over by one of the Secret Service men assigned to protect him. According to The New York Times, "Mr. Kerry [was] taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow." A reporter and camera crew, who were following on skis, witnessed the collision but did not capture it on film. When asked about the crash, the Senator said, "I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me." Or "knocked me over," depending on which version you heard. (Actually, the Senator does fall down, at least according to The New York Post, which reported him as having taken a header on the wet floor of a convenience store the night before.) It probably needs to be pointed out the Senator referred to the agent in such fashion to a third party, as opposed to shouting his assessment into the bodyguard's face at the time of the accident. Yet, that Mr. Kerry didn't deliver the insult directly might speak worse of him. Though the etiquette mavens might not agree, it's almost understandable to call the other party to an accident all manner of cuss words in the immediate aftermath of a collision. Such an outburst is akin to dancing about swearing a blue streak after dropping a hammer on your foot, in that what is vented  though heartily felt at the time  is inappropriate and is realized to be such once the moment has passed. Yet, once there is distance between the accident and the fulmination, the "heat of the moment" defense no longer applies in that sober reflection is presumed to have taken place in the  interim. Did sufficient time pass between the accident and the remark for the initial frustration over having been upended into the snow in front of an audience to have worn off? Or did one follow quickly upon the heels of the other? The New York Times characterized that span as "a moment later" whereas CNN said "He later used an expletive to describe the agent who knocked him down," a phrasing that implies the passage of a goodly chunk of time, even if it doesn't state so outright. Whether Senator Kerry had time to cool down or not, it was churlish of him to call the person charged with protecting his life a son-of-a-bitch, and foolhardy to address such remark to a reporter, an act guaranteed to propel the ire-filled comment into the morning editions. Discretion around members of the fourth estate needs to be second nature for those who look to make their careers in politics, in that an elected official given to blurting things willy-nilly is a liability to those he serves. In similar vein, if a man can't be troubled to speak well of his Secret Service cover, the very agents who will lay down their lives for him, he should at least be enough of a gentleman to refrain from describing them with cuss words. Some who have encountered this story have stopped to ponder if perhaps the Senator voiced his "son of a bitch" characterization in an affectionate or playful manner, as some are wont to do in reference to acquaintances they feel particularly close to. Or, that the remark had been delivered in a tone of pretend anger as a way of ruefully admitting how inglorious the collision must have appeared to onlookers. Yet those theories wash out upon examination of the earliest account. According to The New York Times' description of the incident, Senator Kerry wasn't joking  he was pissed off: When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over." "Sharply" does not describe any form of affectionate phrasing. Far from escaping public notice, Kerry's characterization of one of his government-appointed bodyguards became fodder for Jay Leno of The Tonight Show on 22 March 2004: But he's [John Kerry] quite an athlete. They showed him snowboarding. He's in Idaho and he's snowboarding. You see him on the news? He is pretty good. He's a good snowboarder. Man, he was going downhill faster than Howard Dean. It was unbelievable. There was an accident on the slopes. This is true. Kerry snowboarding. A skier collided with him, knocked him to the ground. Kerry got up, called the guy a son of a bitch. That's what he called the guy. In fact, today the FCC fined him $500,000 dollars and told him the next time he goes snowboarding it has to be with a five-second delay. President Bush has also been guilty of publicly labeling someone with a vulgarity  in 2000 while then the Republican presidental nominee, his privately-meant assessment of a certain reporter as "a major league asshole" was picked up by a live microphone. Our Major League Remark describes what happened and how, plus offers a variety of points to ponder for those intent upon working out whether President Bush or Senator Kerry was the more boorish. Major League Remark Barbara "the boor war" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 September 2007    Sources:   Crowley, Candy.  "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics."   CNN.  19 March 2004.    Halbfinger, David.  "Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All."   The New York Times.  19 March 2004  (p. A20).    Parker, Kathleen.  "Be a Sport, Senator Kerry."   Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  31 March 2004  (p. A15).    The New York Post.  "Kerry Flopped Day Before, Too."   21 March 2004  (p. 10).    The White House Bulletin.  "Late Night Political Humor."   22 March 2004. As Texas struggled with statewide rolling blackouts and much of the United States experienced a potent arctic storm with frigid temperatures and unprecedented ice and snow in February 2021, social media users speculated that frozen wind turbines in Texas played a major role in power outages there (false). And across the world, others argued that Germany's renewable energy sources, wind and solar, failed that country, requiring greater output from nuclear and coal production to make up the difference. experienced unprecedented ice and snow false The allegation stemmed from an article published by Stop These Things (STT), an anti-wind website that the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch said promotes anecdotes and pseudoscience intended to cast doubt on the effectiveness of wind energy. The STT report cited a pseudoscientific blog post published by NoTricksZone on Jan. 28, 2021, by Pierre Goselin titled, Berlin on the Brink! Winter Blackouts Loom As Coal Plants Run At 100% Capacity, Struggle to Keep Lights On. Similar claims were shared on Reddit and other publications, including World News Era. STT said blog post Jan. 28, 2021 Berlin on the Brink! Winter Blackouts Loom As Coal Plants Run At 100% Capacity, Struggle to Keep Lights On Reddit World News Era While it is true that solar panels and wind turbines can suffer during periods of extreme cold and high snow pilings, it is not accurate to say that Germany experienced a total collapse of power. It is also inaccurate to say that coal and nuclear power were required to step up to make up the difference. In particular, NoTricksZone cited a video produced by German national broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB) that had reportedly been taken down by the channel but was reuploaded to YouTube by wind energy protest group Vernunftkraft.du. NoTricksZone said that in the video, Daniel Bartig, a mechanic at the LEAG Lausitz power plant, said that he was skeptical that green energy can do the job and that the greatest share of power is currently coming from coal. Harald Schwarz, professor of power distribution at the University of Cottbus, said that he is very skeptical of wind and solar energy doing the job: YouTube With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, its between 0 and 2 or 3 percent  that is de facto zero. You can see it in many diagrams that we have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV. Especially this time for example  there is no wind and PV, and there are often times when the wind is very miniscule. These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and weve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion. While our emails to RBB, Schwarz and the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy went unanswered, an investigation into Germanys power grid in early 2021 revealed that such claims were largely unfounded. Germany is heralded as a leader in wind and solar power. In 2013, leaders launched Energiewende, a movement to shift the power grid to a more efficient and carbon-neutral system, eliminate electricity generated from nuclear by 2022, and fully phase out coal by 2038. And movements in early 2021 continued a shift from nuclear, as well as coal and oil, to a more diversified system. As of December 2019, about 12% of Germanys electricity came from nuclear energy produced at seven reactors, while over 40% of electricity came from coal, according to the World Nuclear Association, an international organization that promotes nuclear power. By and large, coal was the largest source of power generation in 2019, according to a 2020 report published by the International Energy Agency. World Nuclear Association International Energy Agency Those numbers shifted slightly in 2020, according to preliminary data published by the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), which found that 44.6% of energy sourced in Germany in 2020 was from renewables  nearly a quarter of which was produced by onshore and offshore wind, and 8.9% of which was solar, reported Clean Energy Wire. Clean Energy Wire   But other energy sources still hold a share in that total. Natural gas made up 16.2%, while nuclear clocked in around 11.4%, and hard coal 7.5%, so its not out of the ordinary for Germany to be getting its energy from coal and nuclear sources, particularly in the winter. The largest issue with Germanys power grid, according to the IEA, is that most of the wind capacity is located in the northern region whereas most of the demand is in urban regions to the south  and transporting wind power can be a difficult and arduous task. According to STT report, Germanys millions of solar panels are blanketed in snow and ice and were thus rendered useless: So much for the transition to an all wind and sun powered future  aka the Energiewende. Despite being the object of consternation and much vilification over the last 20 years, Germanys coal-fired plants are now being appreciated for what they are: truly meaningful power generation sources, available on demand, whatever the weather. With a Nationwide blackout a heartbeat away, the German obsession with unreliable wind and solar is like a time bomb set to explode. It is true that solar panels require sunlight to produce energy and that being covered in snow can hamper their efficiency, but that doesnt mean that they are rendered useless. Most solar panels are tilted at an angle, so snow will slide off on its own. And if it doesnt, caretakers will simply remove the snow without damaging the panels, according to the solar industry company Energy Sage. Cold, sunny weather is actually good for panels. Winter months are actually good for solar energy production, as long as your panels arent covered by snow. Like most electronics, solar panels function more efficiently in cold conditions than in hot, wrote the solar industry experts. This means that your panels will produce more power for each precious hour of sunshine during the short days of winter. wrote And according to the U.S. Department of Energy, a little snow has little impact on solar panels. While heavy snow can limit the amount of energy produced, light is still able to move through the snow  even when panels are completely covered by snow, they can still generate energy. U.S. Department of Energy The biggest threat to solar panels from heavy snowfall is weight, which can put stress on the delicate system and photovoltaic panels, which are responsible for generating electricity via sunlight. The TSS report also claimed that freezing weather has halted 30,000 wind turbines, which could in part be true. Turbines use wind to make electricity when it rotates the blades around a rotor, which spins a generator to create electricity. But when there is an accumulation of ice on these blades, an increased load can reduce power and damage the blades. spins Cold weather can also shut down equipment, and in places that are ill-equipped for chilly temperatures, this can slow down energy production. But NoTricksZone reported that 30,000 wind turbines in Germany were largely out of operation, and in a world 100% reliant on green energies, this would mean near 100% darkness at home. Snopes did not find evidence to confirm that tens of thousands of turbines were out of operation; neither is it true that Germany is fully dependent on green energies  yet. Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award Before Snowjam turned into a verbal snowball fight between Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and some news outlets, Reed planned to spend most of his time Jan. 31 with the Atlanta Press Club talking about his initiatives for 2014. Reed did address some goals for the year, such as keeping more young, smart people in the city. One statistic the mayor cited about the percentage of Georgia Tech students who stay after graduation piqued our curiosity. Right now, we only keep 50 percent of Georgia Techs graduates, Reed said. Is this correct? Carlos Campos, a spokesman for the mayor, said Reed based his comments on information from the 128-year-old college located in Midtown Atlanta. Campos specified that the mayor was referring to the percentage of Tech graduates who remain not just in Atlanta, but the entire state of Georgia. College graduates, statistics show, typically earn higher salaries, so elected officials want to keep them around. Reed told the audience hes planning an effort to raise upward of $150 million to fund high-tech startup firms in the city. The mayor said those companies are needed to keep more college grads in Atlanta and away from Silicon Valley. Reed said hes working with local business leaders on the retainment effort and set a long-term goal of keeping at least 75 percent of Tech graduates here. Reed is not the first person to raise concerns about a brain drain. Some Michigan educators and elected officials talked about the need to keep more college graduates in that state. A first-of-its-kind survey of all 2007 Michigan public university graduates, conducted by Michigan Future Inc., revealed that half of grads left the state within a year, The Detroit News reported. The percentage of Michigan State University graduates who left the state doubled between 2001 and 2009, from 24 percent to 49 percent, the newspaper reported, citing statistics from the school. Nationally, theres little research on the topic. A 2007-08 federal survey found 69 percent of college graduates were living in the state where they earned their degree one year after graduation. Georgia Tech spokeswoman Laura Diamond gave us some data from surveys done in 2012 and 2013 about its graduates. Over those two years, 52 percent of Tech undergraduates remained in the state. The total increases to 55 percent once you include those who attended graduate school. The 2012 survey polled 2,619 students who were scheduled to graduate with bachelors or masters degrees that year with questions about employment prospects and future plans. About 55 percent of the students completed the entire survey. Georgia Tech has about 21,500 undergraduate and graduate students. The report contains job placement rates and salary offers in 34 majors for bachelors students. Seventy percent of those graduates found jobs, and the median salary was just above $63,000 and a median bonus of $5,000. For graduate students, the job placement rate was nearly 72 percent, and the median salary was $78,000 with a median bonus of $10,000. Reed said in his remarks to the Atlanta Press Club that one-half of Georgia Tech graduates stay in Georgia. He based his statement on data from Georgia Tech. The schools surveys are pretty close to the mayors statement. Theres not much data out there on this subject. Georgia Techs surveys showed the percentage of graduates who stayed in the state were slightly higher than what the mayor said at the luncheon. Still, Reed appears to be on the right track with his comments, based on the limited information available. Our rating: Mostly True. Seventy-three seconds into the 28 January 1986 flight of the space shuttle Challenger the craft broke apart, killing the seven astronauts aboard. Videotapes released by NASA afterwards showed that a few seconds before the disaster, an unusual plume of fire and smoke could be seen spewing from the lower section of the shuttle's right solid-fuel rocket. It was generally assumed (and NASA did little to disturb this opinion) that all aboard died the moment the external tank blew up. NASA later conceded it was likely that at least three of the crew members aboard remained conscious after the explosion, and perhaps even throughout the few minutes it took forthe crew compartment of the shuttle to fall back to Earth and slam into the Atlantic Ocean. The agency was highly secretive about matters relating to the Challenger tragedy, actively fighting in the courts media requests to be allowed access to photographs of the wreckage, the details of the settlements made with the crews' families, or the autopsy reports, and this reticence to share information likely convinced some that there was more to the story than was being told. Such an environment breeds its own rumors, and Miami Herald reporter Dennis E. Powell wrote that the crew were likely all alive and conscious until the shuttle's crew compartment plunged into the Atlantic Ocean: When the shuttle broke apart, the crew compartment did not lose pressure, at least not at once. There was an uncomfortable jolt  "A pretty good kick in the pants" is the way one investigator describes it  but it was not so severe as to cause injury. This probably accounted for the "uh oh" that was the last word heard on the flight deck tape recorder that would be recovered from the ocean floor two months later. As they were feeling the jolt, the four astronauts on the flight deck saw a bright flash and a cloud of steam. The lights went out. The intercom went dead. After a few breaths, the seven astronauts stopped getting oxygen into their helmets. Someone, apparently astronaut Ronald McNair, leaned forward and turned on the personal emergency air pack of shuttle pilot Michael Smith. The PEAP of Commander Francis Scobee was in a place where it was difficult to reach. It was not activated. Even so, if the crew compartment did not rapidly lose air pressure, Scobee would only have had to lift his mask to be able to breathe. Two other PEAPs were turned on. The three others were never found. Though the shuttle had broken to pieces, the crew compartment was intact. It stabilized in a nose-down attitude within 10 to 20 seconds, say the investigators. Even if the compartment was gradually losing pressure, those on the flight deck would certainly have remained conscious long enough to catch a glimpse of the green-brown Atlantic rushing toward them. If it lost its pressurization very slowly or remained intact until it hit the water, they were conscious and cognizant all the way down. In fact, no clear evidence was ever found that the crew cabin depressurized at all. There was certainly no sudden, catastrophic loss of air of the type that would have knocked the astronauts out within seconds. Such an event would have caused the mid-deck floor to buckle upward; that simply didn't happen. A purported transcript of the Challenger crew's final horrifying moments has circulated online for many years, supposedly taken from a "secret tape" leaked from NASA: A secret NASA tape reveals that the crew of the shuttle Challenger not only survived the explosion that ripped the vessel apart; they screamed, cried, cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before they slammed into the Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986. The tape is said to begin with a startled crewman screaming,"What happened? What happened? Oh God - No!" Screams and curses are heard - several crewmen begin to weep - and then others bid their families farewell. Two minutes forty-five seconds later the tape ends. That's when the shuttles crew compartment, which remained intact after the vessel exploded over the Atlantic, hit the ocean at over 2,000 miles per hour, instantly killing the crew. "Cover up? Of course there was a coverup," declared Robert Hotz, a member of the Presidential commission that investigated the disaster. "NASA can't face the fact that they put these astronauts in a situation where they didn't have adequate equipment to survive. NASA doesn't give a damn about anything but covering it's ass," he said. The official account released by NASA ends with shuttle pilot Michael Smith saying, "Uh-oh!" Some NASA employees have evidently heard more - much more. And they provided the rest of the account based on what they've discussed within NASA in the last five years. The astronauts had time and realized something was happening after the shuttle broke up. "All shuttle astronauts carry personal recorders and the tape in question apparently came from Christa's (McAuliffe), which was recovered after the shuttle disaster," said Hotz. Jarvis was sitting beside her, and when he figured out what was happening he said, "Give me your hand." "NASA insists there's nothing like that on tape but they're talking about the mission tape, not Christa's. So they're not lying, but they're not telling the truth, either." A journalist with close ties to NASA was even more emphatic, "There are persistent rumors, dating back to the disaster, that this tape is absolutely bone-chilling." The following transcript begins two seconds after NASA's official version ends, with pilot Michael Smith saying, "Uh-oh!" Times from the moment of takeoff are shown in minutes and seconds and are approximate. The sex of the speaker is indicated by M or F. T+1:15  (M)  What happened? What happened? Oh God, no - no! T+1:17  (F)  Oh dear God. T+1:18  (M)  Turn on your air pack! Turn on your air... T+1:20  (M)  Can't breathe... choking... T+1:21  (M)  Lift up your visor! T+1:22  (M/F)  (Screams.) It's hot. (Sobs.) I can't. Don't tell me... God! Do it...now... T+1:24  (M)  I told them... I told them... Dammit! Resnik don't... T+1:27  (M)  Take it easy! Move (unintelligible)... T+1:28  (F)  Don't let me die like this. Not now. Not here... T+1:31  (M)  Your arm... no... I (extended garble, static) T+1:36  (F)  I'm... passing... out... T+1:37  (M)  We're not dead yet. T+1:40  (M)  If you ever wanted (unintelligible) me a miracle... (unintelligible)... (screams) T+1:41  (M)  She's... she's... (garble) ... damn! T+1:50  (M)  Can't breathe... T+1:51  (M/F)  (screams) Jesus Christ! No! T+1:54  (M)  She's out. T+1:55  (M)  Lucky... (unintelligible). T+1:56  (M)  God. The water... we're dead! (screams) T+2:00  (F)  Goodbye (sobs)... I love you, I love you... T+2:03  (M)  Loosen up... loosen up... T+2:07  (M)  It'll just be like a ditch landing... T+2:09  (M)  That's right, think positive. T+2:11  (M)  Ditch procedure... T+2:14  (M)  No way! T+2:17  (M)  Give me your hand... T+2:19  (M)  You awake in there? I... I... T+2:29  (M)  Our Father... (unintelligible)... T+2:42  (M)  ...hallowed be Thy name... (unintelligible). T+2:57  (M)  You...over there? T+2:58  (M)  The Lord is my shepherd, I shall... not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures... though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil... I will dwell in the house... T+3:15 to end.  None. Static, silence. Rest in Peace However, this "transcript" originated with an article published in a February 1991 issue of Weekly World News, a tabloid famous for creating news stories out of whole cloth. There never was such a transcript, nor was the crew of the Challenger known to have been wearing personal recorders. Moreover, personal recorders would not have picked up the comments of crew members on different decks as the faked transcript would have us believe. Weekly World News Not everyone aboard died the exact second the external tank exploded; that much is known. A complete understanding of exactly what happened in that cabin after the explosion remains elusive because the impact of the crash, plus the six weeks the wreckage and bodies spent in the sea, made it impossible to determine precisely when and how everybody aboard died. (Six weeks in sea water would also have ruined any unshielded audio tapes that miraculously survived the explosion and the crash.)  If the cabin depressurized immediately, the crew would have lived about 6 to 15 seconds after the blast; if not, they might have survived for the full two minutes and forty-five seconds it took the cabin to fall 65,000 feet back to Earth. They most certainly could not have lived through the crushing 207 mph impact with the waters off the Florida coast, which negates the wilder versions of "survived astronauts" rumors that had them still alive for hours (and even days) under the sea, waiting for rescuers who could not reach them in time. Possibly the best clue towards solving the mystery of how long the doomed crew survived lies in what NASA learned from examining the four emergency air packs recovered from the wreckage. Three had been manually activated, which demonstrated that at least some of the crew realized something had gone wrong and had taken steps to save themselves. However, the fourth unactivated pack speaks with an even stronger voice, indicating that most likely realization of the circumstances and loss of consciousness were occurring at roughly the same time. That was the conclusion of Dr. Joseph Kerwin, director of Life Sciences at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. His July 1986 report was based on an official examination of the debris of the crew compartment, audio tapes and other data recorded on the shuttle, the remains of the astronauts, and photographs of the capsule as it fell after the shuttle exploded. In the report, Dr. Kerwin said: "The cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined, the forces to which the crew were exposed during the orbiter breakup were probably not sufficient to cause death or serious injury, and the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure." In other words, they might well have lived for the full spiral down and might even have been fully conscious for all of that hellish descent. But even if so, this fabricated "transcript" does not preserve their final words. Jones, Alex.  "Withheld Shuttle Data: A Debate Over Privacy."
  The New York Times.  27 January 1987  (p. C1). Okie, Susan.  "Astronaut Autopsies Will Be Difficult."
  The Washington Post.  16 March 1986  (p. A14). Wilford, John Noble.  "A Grueling Autopsy for the Challenger."
  The New York Times.  9 February 1986  (p. D5). The Associated Press.  "NASA Says Challenger Crew Survived Briefly After Blast."
  The San Diego Union-Tribune.  29 July 1986  (p. A8). The Associated Press.  "Challenger Crew Made Bid for Life."
  The Record.  29 July 1986  (p. A1). "Tape Proves Doomed Shuttle Screamed, Cursed and Prayed."
  Weekly World News. 5 February 1991.