Did Native Americans Shoot Down an Airplane with Arrows?
A photograph purportedly showing an airplane with dozens of wooden arrows stuck into its underside is frequently shared online, accompanied by one of a number of fabricated backstories:   LinkedIn Someone sent me this as the natives are protesting all the pipelines being built. Greenpeace supplied all the arrows since they are more environmentally friendly than bullets. In April 2014, the web site Fellowship of the Minds shared the same image along with text holding that it depicted President Obama's plane after he undertook a flight over a reservation in Oklahoma: shared Obama took a private plane flight over an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. This is what happened ... This photograph does not show a plane that was attacked by Native Americans. Rather, it captures an installation that was created by the art collective Los Carpinteros. The piece, entitled Avio (Plane), was displayed at the Faena Art Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012: Los Carpinteros displayed Faena Art Center   Through an economy of improvisation and precariousness, the artists work utilizes industrial objects to ironically challenge the notions of civilization and the mechanisms of perception by juxtaposing affluent western society against a rationed society with minimal consumption. An imposing Piper Comanche aircraft pierced by wooden arrows makes up Avio, a large-scale installation alluding to the development and conquest of space, and symbolizing the cultural shock caused by technological progress in various different civilizations. Stolz, George.  "Los Carpinteros: Seeing Double."
  Art News.  24 June 2013. Hosmer, Katie.  "Hundreds of Wooden Arrows Pierce Airplane from Below."
  My Modern Met.  24 June 2013.
Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. Freshman Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, is clear that lawmakers need to fix the Public Employees Retirement System this year, and that they themselves should not be part of the system. He pledged during his campaign to decline membership in PERS.Earlier this month, Knopps officeissued a press release sayingthat along with being sworn into office, he upheld a campaign promise not to join the state retirement program known as the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).It is very important to me to honor the promises that Ive made, Knopp is quoted as saying in the release. If wedont fix PERS now there will be fewer firefighters protecting our communities, fewer police officers on the streets, and fewer teachersin the classroom.PERS is contentious.Lawmakers reformed the system in 2003, curbing benefits for new employees going forward. Some lawmakers say its still too generous. Public employee unions are firm that the benefits were bargained for and are fair.Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, wants to find savings in the system, as do Republicans;House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, is lukewarm to the idea. Public employees generally favor Democrats with campaign help and money, so its not surprising to hear that Knopp, a Republican, promised to opt out.But PolitiFact Oregon also recalled that before he joined the Senate this year, Knopp was a three-term member of the Oregon House. In fact, he was House majority leader when lawmakers tackled reform in 2003. We were pretty sure he had been a member of PERS.Knopps office confirmed what we thought to be true. He joined the system in 1999, when he was first elected to the House, and remained an active member until 2005, when he left office. As a member for six years, he was vested in the system. The money continued accruing until 2010.What happened in 2010? Knopp needed money for a family medical emergency, so he cashed out his account. The total gross amount was $8,167.07, which we acknowledge is not an astonishingly high figure. Retirement benefits are calculated based on pay, and length of service, and legislators dont earn much, about $20,000 a year.Still, we think his previous membership is a relevant detail curiously missing from an otherwise glowing press release. If PolitiFact Oregon were in office and had made public employee retirement a major part of our platform and had promised to opt out, we think wed make it explicit that we had once been part of PERS, in the interest of full and complete disclosure.In any case, Knopp had three options when he was sworn into office this year: Join the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan, which is the pension system hes complaining about; join the Oregon Savings Growth Plan, which is like any other deferred compensation plan; or decline to join a retirement plan.Knopp chose the deferred compensation plan. The state -- his employer, the taxpayers -- contributes 6 percent to his plan. The state does not pick up the additional 6 percent of salary on behalf of employees, as it would under PERS.We had two questions for the senator from Central Oregon: One, why not publicize the fact that he was a member -- for more than a decade -- of the system he is now criticizing? And two, why take a retirement option at all?Lets take the retirement question first. Knopp told PolitiFact Oregon that hes not opposed to compensation for legislators. He just doesnt want them to vote on a system in which they have a stake. To that end, he has co-sponsored a bill toprohibit future legislators from joining PERS or the deferred compensation plan, because they shouldnt be forced to be in the system, as he was.Actual or perceived, there needs to be somebody who completely represents citizens and taxpayers, without a conflict, he said.As to the first question, Knopp said he disclosed his previous membership on the campaign trail. When his Democratic challenger said Knopp was a PERS member at an October 2012 candidates forum, he said, I closed my account years ago, honestly, to pay some medical bills when my daughter had two brain surgeries.We get that the retirement system in 1999 was not the legislative issue that it was in 2003 or that it is in 2013. But why didnt he close his account before 2003, when it was clear hed have to vote on PERS reforms? He said it wasnt clear at the time whether he could..Why not close the account in 2005, after leaving office? He saidhe co-sponsored a bill in 2003 that offered a financial incentive for peoplewith inactive accounts to close their accounts. He thought it unseemly to benefit from that legislation -- although we checked, and he wouldnt have qualified.Then why wait until 2010 to close his account? Knopp didnt have a clear answer. He acknowledges that had he not needed the money in 2010, he would have continued to be a member.Knopp has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the Public Employees Retirement System. He served as the House chairman of the committee to reform PERS in 2003. He promised voters that he would not accept PERS this year and he followed through on the promise.What Knopp failed to mention is that he was a member of PERS who closed his account in 2010 because his family needed the money. Knopp could have closed his account in 2003 -- and avoided the conflict then -- or he could have closed his account when he left office in 2005.None of that takes away from the accuracy of the statement -- he honored his pledge to stay out of PERS -- but it is additional information that we deem missing from his press releases.We rate the statement Mostly True. On March 16, 2020, a Facebook user was watching a local news broadcast when an image graphic supposedly showing results from a 2020 Democratic presidential primary election popped up on the screen. This wouldn't have been very unusual except for one thing: The election hadn't happened yet.  The Facebook user posted a video of the broadcast on Facebook. The image graphic in question, shown below, shows former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden winning the Illinois primary with 50% of the vote and defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders: video   WCIA truly did broadcast the above-displayed graphic the day before the 2020 Illinois primary. However, this is not a story about election rigging or a news station with unusual prognosticating abilities. This is a story about a broadcasting error.  Television news stations do a lot of prep work before live broadcasts, especially for an election. One thing they do is make image graphics similar to the one above. Once the visuals are set, reporters can plug in the results and quickly produce an image ready for television. In the case above, one of these "test" visuals was accidentally aired on television. CNN made a similar mistake in 2013 when they accidentally published pre-written obituaries for people who were still very much alive.  pre-written obituaries WCIA reporter Mark Maxwell reached out to the Facebook user after her post went viral and explained that this was a "test" graphic that was never meant to air: We do routine test rehearsals before every election to make sure the graphics work properly and to give directors some practice. The error was in putting the dry run on air. That shouldnt have happened and were looking into it. Obviously, we never intended to give the wrong information or wrong impression. None of those numbers were based on any real polling returns. Since your post is being widely shared, Id appreciate it if you would consider updating the original post so people dont get the wrong idea. Rich Flesch, the News Director of WCIA, also reached out, writing: WCIA 3 News --- Sorry it was an error by our team. We are currently doing election rehearsals with test data and not intended to go on TV. We apologize for any inconvenience. The user updated her Facebook post to include both of these responses.  The claim that this image shows "tomorrow's results" can also be debunked by looking at the actual results of the primary election in question. On March 17, 2020, the day after WCIA accidentally published the test graphic, the election took place and the real results were made available. While the test graphic showed Biden winning with 986,341 votes (or 50%), Biden actually ended up getting 913,067 votes (or 59.1% of the vote). Sanders fared better in the test graphic with 893,249 votes (for 45%); in the election he took in 556,904 votes (or 36%). real results   The New York Times.  "Live: Illinois State Primary Election Results 2020."
  17 March 2020. On 25 January 2017, RedStateWatcher.com published an article misleadingly titled "Popular Restaurant Chain Offering to Fund Planned Parenthood with Portion of Every Sale."  Readers predictably inferred from the headline that the Chili's restaurant chain was "fund[ing] Planned Parenthood ... with every sale," prompting an avalanche of angry social media comments on the chain's Facebook page.  article page Many articles popular on Facebook are viewed only in news feeds, meaning that many users may have seen the headline but did not read the underlying article: Ok. Im really upset over this. Chilis is one of my favorite restaurants, but I may need to seriously rethink my dining options. Chilis restaurants in two states have apparently joined with Planned Parenthood to raise funds for the infanticide mill. The article cited an anti-abortion blog but didn't link to any official information from Chili's announcing or confirming the purported Planned Parenthood initiative. None of the versions we could find specified the origin of the claim, and the only substantiation appeared to be a screenshot of a since-deleted post:   We contacted Chili's media relations department for clarification about whether the chain was donating 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood in two states, or in any location. In a statement we received from Chilis Grill & Bar, a representative for the chain explained: At Chilis, we have a longstanding history and take pride in giving back to unite our local communities together. We recognize every community is unique, and encourage our restaurant managers and franchise partners to support causes that help bring communities together and leave a positive impact on our valued Guests, neighbors, friends and families we serve. Yesterday, we learned that an independent franchise partner of Chilis in Indiana and Kentucky made the decision to host a Chilis Give Back Event on behalf of Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky. While our franchise partner had the best intentions; we have received growing feedback and concern from community members regarding the Give Back Event. This feedback does not reflect Chilis focus on bringing communities together and the event was never intended to be viewed as a partisan event or political statement, therefore we, along with our franchise partner, have decided to cancel the event.  We will more clearly communicate the focus of Chilis charitable giving efforts, so that our restaurant managers and franchise partners can feel empowered to support local organizations that bring communities together. The Chili's chain at no point had a plan to donate 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood. Rather, a single independent franchisee planned to host a "Chili's Give Back" event in support of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, an initiative that Chili's and the franchisee canceled after myriad objections. The backlash was similar to that stemming from prior claims that Olive Garden "funded" Planned Parenthood (false), and that Macy's had stopped "funding" the organization (unproven on both counts). Olive Garden Macy's In December 2023, multiple display advertisements were shown to online users on YouTube and other websites that claimed, "America's Most Famous Burger Brand Is Now Chinese Owned." In this story, we've detailed how these ads were both false and misleading. We've also provided information about some of the most successful U.S. burger brands. One ad that we reviewed showed a photo of a large cheeseburger in what appeared to be the dining room of a restaurant. We performed a reverse-image search and traced the picture to a page on Pinterest. A link on that Pinterest page led to another page on friesandsalt.tumblr.com, which revealed that the photo was captured in a Five Guys restaurant. Five Guys is headquartered in Virginia and is not owned by a company in China. reverse-image search page friesandsalt.tumblr.com headquartered  Additional ads that displayed similar captions showed other pictures of burgers. One of those images may have been a stock photo or was possibly captured in Cyprus, according to a user's post on TripAdvisor.com. TripAdvisor.com  All of these ads led to a lengthy article that was hosted on either Investing.com or StreetInsider.com. The story's headline read, "American Companies That Are No Longer American." Investing.com StreetInsider.com The article was massive in its text. It listed nearly 200 businesses and had close to 400 paragraphs. Nowhere in the story did the author mention anything about any American burger brands being bought by a company in China. The ads with the photos of burgers were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through nearly 200 slides for nothing. We hope that our brief article saved readers some time. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage Naming America's "most famous" burger brand might be a subjective choice. However, if sales figures were considered, McDonald's was at the top of the food chain, according to QSR Magazine, Restaurant Business and Yahoo Finance. The company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, not China. QSR Magazine Restaurant Business Yahoo Finance headquartered The same three sources that provided sales figures for burger chains also reported that McDonald's was followed by Wendy's and Burger King. Wendy's is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, while Burger King is owned by the Canadian company Restaurant Brands International. headquartered Restaurant Brands International Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Ahmed, Ali. 20 Best Burger Chains in the US. Yahoo Finance, 5 Aug. 2023, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-best-burger-chains-us-214700611.html. Campus Gardens at Wendys Headquarters in Dublin, OH. Wendys, https://www.wendys.com/csr-what-we-value/footprint/corporate-office-initiatives/gardens. Careers at the McDonalds Global Headquarters. McDonalds Careers, https://careers.mcdonalds.com/mhq-and-field-offices. El Clasico Sports Pub. TripAdvisor.com, Apr. 2019, https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190383-d6651868-i275560000-El_Clasico_Sports_Pub-Nicosia_Nicosia_District.html. Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Five Guys Bacon Triple Cheeseburger. Pinterest, www.pinterest.com/pin/513973376204398170/. ---. friesandsalt.tumblr.com, https://friesandsalt.tumblr.com/post/136992557459/photoset_iframe/friesandsalt/tumblr_nragqdSeHE1qhffuc/0/false. Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/. Our Locations. Restaurant Brands International, https://careers.rbi.com/global/en/locations. Ranked: The Top Fast-Food Burger Chains in America. QSR Magazine, 1 Aug. 2023, https://www.qsrmagazine.com/operations/fast-food/ranked-the-top-fast-food-burger-chains-in-america/. Restaurant Business Staff. The Largest Burger Chains in the U.S. Restaurant Business, 13 May 2020, https://restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/largest-burger-chains-us. On May 18, 2023, a Twitter user shared a photograph of the late physicist Stephen Hawking sitting with a group of people in what appeared to be a tropical setting. The user claimed that Hawking was on the Caribbean island owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  In a tweet, @dom_lucre asked, "Serious question, why the hell was Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epstein's Island?" asked  (@@dom_lucre/X)  This is a real photograph of Hawking that shows him either on one of Epstein's private islands or on nearby St. Thomas Island, at an Epstein-sponsored conference. It was taken in March 2006, a few months before Epstein was charged with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor.  March 2006 charged Epstein, a financier who was later charged with sex trafficking, died in his prison cell in 2021 while awaiting trial (he previously had been convicted of other sex offenses). But before his fall, he was known for his parties and his extensive connections with high-profile celebrities, politicians, and intellectuals. He owned two private islands, Great St. James and Little St. James, which were prominent features in the civil and criminal cases against him. Numerous young women said in court papers that they were taken via private jet to Little St. James, where they were ordered to perform sex acts with Epstein and other men.  died owned said Hawking was just one of many scientists and intellectuals invited to these islands for less-sinister reasons  a scientific conference Epstein paid for. So how was Hawking brought into Epstein's orbit? For years, Epstein financed the Edge Foundation, billed as a salon for elite thinkers, which hosted prominent gatherings of scientists and intellectuals, and gave Epstein access to such circles. According to a Buzzfeed News investigation, Epstein's donations helped Edge carry out most of its activities, including an annual "billionaires dinner" that ceased to take place after his last contribution in 2015.  financed billed investigation An archived page from Edge.org describing Epstein's involvement can be seen here, where he was described as "a financier and science philanthropist." The website stated, "He is one of the largest supporters of individual scientists, including theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek."  Edge.org here In 2006, Epstein sponsored a conference at the neighboring St. Thomas Island. Per a March 2006 report in the St. Thomas Source, a local newspaper, prominent scientists gathered in a series of private meetings dubbed "Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology." Among those scientists was Hawking.  March 2006 Epstein was also described by the local report as the "driving force behind the conference." He reportedly said to the paper that he brought the group to St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists' minds to explore one of the 20th century's last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity? described "There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital 'F,'" Epstein reportedly said. reportedly The New York Times also reported in 2019 on Hawking's trip to this island (emphasis, ours): reported It was a five-day gathering in the Caribbean of some of the world's top scientists, including Dr. Hawking, to share ideas about gravity and cosmology, with scuba and catamaran excursions on the side. One evening, the participants had dinner on the beach at Mr. Epstein's private island. Some of the scientists noticed that Mr. Epstein "was always followed by a group of something like three or four young women," as Alan Guth, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it in an email to The Times, but they did not probe further. In another 2019 report, The New York Times described how, "Once, the scientists  including Mr. Hawking  crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered."  2019 report But where did the photograph come from? In 2006, The Edge Foundation also published a blog post on the conference and interviewed an attendee and organizer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Per the post (emphasis, ours): The Edge Foundation post The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event. We scrolled to the bottom of the page and found photographs of Hawking and more from the gathering. The photograph in question showed Hawking seated alongside Nobel Prize winner David Gross, and physicists Kip Thorne and Lisa Randall. Yet another shows Hawking on what appears to be the interior of a boat, captioned, "Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking on the way to Atlantis Submarine."  page (Screenshot via Edge.org) The New York Times described Epstein's allure for these scientists: The New York Times The lure for some of the scientists was Mr. Epstein's money. He dangled financing for their pet projects. Some of the scientists said that the prospect of financing blinded them to the seriousness of his sexual transgressions, and even led them to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings. The photograph of Hawking has been disseminated in the media, and is also publicly available on the website of the foundation once financed by Epstein, along with a description of the conference he attended, with the dates and details of the gathering matching up with reliable media reports. We thus rate this claim    "A Timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal." AP NEWS, 28 June 2022, https://apnews.com/article/epstein-maxwell-timeline-b9f15710fabb72e8581c71e94acf513e. Accessed 19 May 2023. Aldhous, Peter. "How Jeffrey Epstein Bankrolled An Exclusive Intellectual Boys Club And Reaped The Benefits." BuzzFeed News, 26 Sept. 2019, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-brockman-edge-foundation.Accessed 19 May 2023. Chappell, Bill. "Financier Buys Jeffrey Epstein's Private Islands, with Plans to Create a Resort." NPR, 4 May 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173956903/jeffrey-epstein-island-sold-st-james.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Jeffrey Epstein." Edge.Org. 5 Apr. 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190405211237/https:/www.edge.org/memberbio/jeffrey_epstein.Accessed 19 May 2023. Kantor, Jodi, et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway." The New York Times, 13 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Physicists Debate Gravity at St. Thomas Symposium." St. Thomas Source, 17 Mar. 2006, https://stthomassource.com/content/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium/.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Pictured: Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epsteins 'Sex-Slave Island.'" The Independent, 13 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epstein-s-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Stephen Hawking Pictured on Jeffrey Epstein's "Island of Sin."" Telegraph, 12 Jan. 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking/11340494/Stephen-Hawking-pictured-on-Jeffrey-Epsteins-Island-of-Sin.html. Accessed 19 May 2023. Stewart, James B., et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA." The New York Times, 31 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO." Edge.Org. 6 Mar. 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230306164658/https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Who Was Jeffrey Epstein? The Financier Charged with Sex Trafficking." BBC News, 8 July 2019. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48913377.Accessed 19 May 2023. One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017. On March 13, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said during a press conference that he "didn't take responsibility at all" for the government's lagging behind other countries in terms of testing for new cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease after it was first detected in the United States (see video here). said during a press conference here This led to some renewed interest in an old quote ostensibly uttered by Trump and supposedly published in a 2005 issue of The Sun:   The alleged quote reads: "You never blame yourself. You have to blame something else. If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself." We have been unable to verify the authenticity of this quote, nor have we been able to confirm that this image shows a genuine copy of The Sun from Sept. 12, 2005. We reached out to The Sun for comment and will update this article if more information becomes available.  We did find an instance of this quote in a 2004 article from the celebrity news agency WENN that was published on Contact Music. This 2004 story, however, is very light on details and provides no information about where, when, or in what context Trump made the comment. Contact Music The fact that this quote has been online since at least 2004 lends some credence to the idea that it is a genuine comment from Trump. Many of the fake quotes we encounter, for instance, are modern inventions that are only presented, perhaps in a fake newspaper clip, as if they were years old. However, we have been unable to find any other sources for this quote or any verifiable information about when and where it was said. As such, we've rated the truth of this claim as "Unproven."  modern inventions presented newspaper clip Trump has made other statements regarding blame. In October 2017, for instance, Trump was speaking about how his administration wasn't following through on its agenda before he shifted the blame to Congress: shifted the blame "We're not getting the job done ... And I'm not going to blame myself. I'll be honest: They are not getting the job done." Before taking office, Trump expressed a different opinion about "where the buck stops." In November 2013, he posted the following message on Twitter: message   Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.   Blake, Aaron.  "Trumps Hypocritical Quote on Taking Blame Just About Says it All."
  The Washington Post.  16 October 2017. Smith, David.  "'I Don't Take Responsibility': Trump Shakes Hands and Spreads Blame Over Coronavirus."
  The Guardian.  13 March 2020. In March 2020, Facebook posts offering free coupons supposedly worth $50 in merchandise from Walmart began circulating with the claim that the company was celebrating its anniversary:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupon:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users are then required to click a button to share the "offer" with all their Facebook friends before they can retrieve their coupon. Those who comply by spamming their friends are then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button. However, there is no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook (including previous examples targeting Walmart customers), this one is a scam. We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: other free merchandise offers targeting These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Better Business Bureau.  Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook.
  14 April 2017. In the aftermath of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, many online spoke up to support current President Donald Trump, including groups of truckers. Members of the private Facebook group, Stop the Tires 2020, called for a nationwide truckers' shutdown to protest  among other things  Bidens environmental policies that will include a transition to renewable energy sources. aftermath truckers transition The group  which as of the time of writing had grown to more than 68,000 members since its founding on Nov. 6, 2020  planned a strike for Nov. 11, 2020, Veterans Day, and if that was ineffective, would continue the strike from Nov. 26 to 29, 2020, during the Thanksgiving holidays. According to a post from one of the group's administrators:  group  planned  Tiktok videos of individuals stating they were truckers and describing their plans to strike on the aforementioned dates also went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=fTaPCcyqaG0&app=desktop Snopes readers asked us if such strikes were indeed taking place, and if they would impact the delivery of basic food and necessities. We learned that a number of truckers claimed to have participated in the Veterans Day strike. But the actual effectiveness of the past strikes as well as the upcoming ones are yet to be determined. Before looking at the nature and effectiveness of these strikes we had to determine whether nationwide and industry-wide strikes were even likely for U.S.-based truckers. The answer is complicated. A report from Business Insider looked at laws from the administration of President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s that resulted in a decline in wages, and the eventual decline in union membership in the trucking industry. Deregulation laws were justified because they reportedly saved consumers money, but at the cost of truckers wages and working conditions. Hourly wages for heavy and trailer-truck drivers have steadily gone down since then. Business Insider Deregulation laws saved consumers Unions also lost much of their power and membership. A few decades ago, large numbers of truckers were unionized and carried out successful strikes in the '70s. The Teamsters, a labor union that once boasted more than 2 million truckers as members, now has around 75,000 members. And with more independent truckers and companies it is considered extremely challenging to wrangle that many truckers together, because they have neither the time nor resources. Case in point, in April 2019: Tens of thousands of truck drivers planned a work stoppage in a much-hyped Black Smoke Matters protest, but ultimately only a smattering of people in different locations participated. Unions successful strikes challenging April 2019:  On Nov. 11, and even after that date had passed, dozens of members of Stop the Tires 2020 posted pictures on the private group claiming they were participating in a strike by refusing to drive. Some of their posts are below:          But there was little evidence that these stoppages had any impact. WWJ Newsradio 950, Detroits local station, reported on Nov. 11, So far, the call for a one-day strike seems to be all talk, as the trucking industry is humming along. Truckers the station interviewed were not participating, but stated that the strikers concerns made sense, and should be taken seriously: WWJ Newsradio 950 Larry Fuentes, the manager of a large logistics company in metro Detroit told WWJ his truckers have not joined it, but "I can have some understanding of what they're coming for. Their livelihoods are at stake." He added that a strike would devastate the industry. Samuel Ford, a truck driver from Brownstown, Mich., added that he hasn't joined it, but the drivers in the strike group have a point. "Truckers are very often overlooked ... But they do have a very significant say-so over how this country is run," he said. Not all truckers are part of these particular anti-Biden strikes. After the election results were announced on Nov. 7, 2020, the American Trucking Associations released a statement congratulating Biden and calling for more infrastructure investment. American Trucking Associations Other groups that claimed to strike said they were not defending any one political party, but wanted to improve their working conditions and wages. Over the summer truckers also organized to protest decreased freight rates and working conditions during the pandemic. groups the summer Indeed, before the elections, the truckers running the supply chain for United Natural Foods Inc. (UNFI) that supplies Whole Foods and other grocery stores in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut threatened to strike over what they said was UNFI's failure to comply with COVID-19 safety guidelines. The truckers, represented by Teamsters, along with workers at distribution centers in California, said the company was not providing workers with adequate protective equipment, including face masks, and disinfecting and cleaning workspaces. But they reached an agreement with the company by early November. threatened agreement Since, as of this writing, the strikes planned for late-November are yet to happen, their effectiveness is still to be determined. We will keep an eye on the events and post an update once we have more information.  UPDATE Nov. 18, 2020: Stop the Tires 2020 creator Jeremy Rewoldt called off the Thanksgiving holiday work stoppage, saying "Now is not the time." In an appearance on a video blog, he admitted that he had previously made an "emotion-based decision based on a presumed result of the election that hasnt been certified yet." He added that the administrative team had fractured over disagreements around the purpose of their Facebook group, and he posted on the page: "When this group was made the intentions were to talk and BS amongst a few, if not a couple hundred, people, my friends and others included. What I though was going to be a few hundred turned into 75K people who I now had to voice for. The group's profile image, on Nov. 18, said "Delayed."  called off profile image