Is There an Ancient Alien Satellite Known as the 'Black Knight'?
It's a story that seems like it was dreamed up by science fiction writers: An alien satellite has been orbiting Earth for thousands of years, and the government has kept it a secret. Or so the story goes. According to Space.com, the "Black Knight" conspiracy theory goes like this: For about 12,000 years, an alien satellite orbited Earth, surveilling humanity. It was discovered about 120 years ago, but was the subject of a cover-up. Space.com Then in 2017, UFO conspiracy theorists claimed, it was shot down by the Illuminati, a clandestine group they believe secretly controls the world. claimed The "Black Knight" satellite conspiracy theory continues to get attention online. Here's one example, posted to Twitter on Jan. 3, 2022, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:   If there really is an alien craft orbiting Earth and it's the subject of a cover-up, the government is doing a very bad job of it, considering the images that catalyzed the conspiracy theory were taken and shared by NASA. And contrary to what the above post says, the origin of the object in question is known. images We will explain more below, but the object is essentially space junk, and it wasn't shot down, it burned in Earth's atmosphere. According to a debunking of the conspiracy theory published by James Oberg, a former NASA engineer, the image was taken during STS-88, the first shuttle mission to the International Space Station in 1998. The crew of the space shuttle Discovery was sent to space to help assemble the space station. debunking During a space walk in which astronauts were placing thermal covers over trunnion pins, one of the blankets came loose and, to the dismay of the astronauts, drifted away into space. Oberg pointed to video of the moment the thermal cover mishap, which can be viewed here: trunnion pins here  Crookes, David and All About Space. The Black Knight Satellite: A Hodgepodge of Alien Conspiracy Theories. Space.com, 17 Dec. 2021, https://www.space.com/what-is-the-black-knight.html. Oberg, James. "Phantom satellite? What IS it? What ISNT it? WHY the confusion?" 21 Oct. 2014, https://www.jamesoberg.com/sts88_and-black-knight.pdf
On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing "behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket" as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: photograph  The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: caption Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark "March on Washington" civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: stated speech On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., "one of the great leaders in American history." Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his "I have a dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. "We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life." As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was "brief and localized" and effectively ended in 1963: noted Civil Rights Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: Paul Reese In short: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX https://t.co/EseJmycaVX  Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, 2016 February 12, 2016 Claim:  Photograph shows a 9-month-old baby tattooed by its mother's boyfriend.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2011] A local New York State resident, Franny Trokerns was arrested early this morning after being turned in by her babysitter. After the babysitter noticed the child was constantly screaming as if the baby was pain she took the baby's clothes off to give her a bath and saw the baby had a REAL tattoo on the her right arm. The babysitter was in disbelief and immediately called authorities. The mother works as a dancer at a local strip bar and apparently during a night of heavy drinking of shots she allowed her on-and-off-again boyfriend Derrek Honsteads (a tattoo artist) to tattoo her 9 month old baby for a little practice!   Origins:  This image does not show a 9-month-old baby whose mother, after a night of heavy drinking, allowed her tattoo artist boyfriend to ply his trade on her child.  The infant in the picture is not a real child, and the accompanying text is simply a bit of fiction crafted by someone to create a false outrage-provoking backstory. What's pictured here is a 2010 work by Brooklyn, New York, artist Jason Clay Lewis, who describes his art thusly: Jason Clay Lewis As an artist, my approach has always been, intentionally, to confound and challengeattempts to make things fit into what we already know and think. I strive to questionperceived beauty, passion, life, death, and creation. I have an urgent conviction that artis a passionate and essential affair, as if a matter of life and death, where one sensesthe only response to death is art. Without glossing over the violence of the natural worldI asks questions about man's suicidal folly, the one we call progress, a merger into apathetic religion of commerce and profit, of false facades, and using a strategy to makeus reconsider our world of visual imagery. I tinker with these visual explanations, tryingto give them purpose, direction, and meaning. Always perfectly aware that knowing thisconstant probing does not have a sequence to a perfect solution. Atypical andfascinating, as an adventurer blending expression, analysis, and experience, I use everymeans and media available to explore the love of knowledge and depict limits, whiletrying to push those limits even farther. My interest in unique materials helps to developmy ideas of attraction verses repulsion allowing my work to have both a strong visceralfeeling while maintaining a direct cerebral presence. This particular work is entitled 'Drill Baby' and features an infant constructed from vinyl rubber, mohair, oil paint, plaster, and aluminum armature.  Photographs of the full artwork, as well as close-ups taken from multiple angles, can be viewed here. here Last updated:  22 January 2012 Democrats criticized Rick Perry for college costs the day the Republican governor gave his valedictory speech to Texas lawmakers. Among the beefs in a Jan. 15, 2015, email blast from the Democratic National Committee: College tuition rates in Texas jumped by 55% since 2003, putting the dream of earning a college degree further out of reach for many Texans. That year should ring a bell; its when Perry and the Republican-controlled Legislatureagreed to deregulate public college tuition, handing control to appointed college and university governing boards. Committee's source We wondered how much tuition ultimately escalated. By email, Miryam Lipper, a committee spokeswoman, pointed out a September 2012news storyin theDallas Morning Newsthat said by the papers analysis, Texas students are paying 55 percent more for tuition and fees at state universities a decade after lawmakers lifted restrictions on costs. The story also said: State officials used to brag about the affordability of college, but the costs have ballooned since 2003, even when inflation is factored in. Updated data Seeking up-to-date information, we reached out to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, where a staff spokeswoman, Kelly Carper Polden, pointed out aFebruary 2014 board documentshe described as the most recent publicly available report on Texas tuition and fees. The document said, in part: From fall 2003 through fall 2013, the statewide average total academic charges for a student taking 15 SCHs at a public university has increased by 104 percent. An SCH is a semester credit-hour. According to the document, the boards calculations were rooted in tuition and fees charged students. Then again, the board said, a student's actual charges may vary based on the student's classification and level of enrollment, the college the student attends within the university, the student's specific personal circumstances, or for other reasons deemed appropriate by the institution. Charts in the board analysis indicate the tuition and fees each year from fall 2003 through fall 2013 for nearly 40 institutions, most of them in the University of Texas or Texas A&M University systems. On average in fall 2003, tuition and fees were $1,934 for 15 semester credit-hours, according to the report. The average in fall 2013 was $3,951, the board said. By phone, Polden confirmed the boards results didnt take inflation into account. So we employed a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorto estimate that tuition and fees at the states public colleges and universities escalated 61 percent, in real terms, from fall 2003 through fall 2013. But that didnt bring us to the 2014-15 school year. So we asked for comparable charges on average for a student as of fall 2014. By email, Polden said the fall 2014 statewide average for someone taking 15 SCHs was $4,091, lifting the raw average tuition increase since fall 2003 to 112 percent. Adjusted for inflation, we calculated, the increase was 64 percent. UT Austin Separately, we asked the University of Texas at Austin for its fall 2014 charge for that many credit hours. Spokesman Gary Susswein emailed the amount, $4,905, which we compared with the fall 2003 charge for that university of $2,721. Adjusted for inflation, the hike over the years came out to 40 percent. Out of governor's control? Worth mention: After signing tuition deregulation into law, Perry subsequently had no sway over tuition hikes except to appoint higher education governing boards. In recent years too, Perrycalled for $10,000, four-year degree programs and for institutions to freeze tuitionso an entering student would pay the same tab each year while earning a degree. Our ruling The Democratic group, zeroing in on Perry, said Texas college tuition rates increased 55 percent since 2003. That figure is outdated--the increase through fall 2014 was 64 percent--and it's also worth clarifying the governor didn't directly control tuition, though he approved of the 2003 law deregulating rates and appointed ruling public college and university governing boards. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. In May 2017, the Affordable Care Act (more popularly known as Obamacare) returned to the news thanks to a Congressional vote to attempt to change the health insurance law. Those developments resurrected a meme that attributed the following quote to former Alaska governor and one-time vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin: news Obamacare has already made people less responsible for their own health. Like, if you don't want limes disease, then don't eat so many limes. Is that so tough? Although the precise origin of the meme was not immediately apparent, we were able to find that it was published at least as early as June 2014 by Facebook pages such as Republican BS and FreeDumb Nation: Republican BS FreeDumb Nation   The meme bears a faint watermark, which is difficult to spot (it's located at the mid-to-lower right hand corner or the image) but is associated with the satire page Christians for Michele Bachmann.  Christians for Michele Bachmann The same watermark can be more clearly seen on another image created by the same satirical Facebook page (original background art credited to @the_pizzacat on Instagram): @the_pizzacat on Instagram   Nothing that comes from this page is intended to be taken seriously  including the quote attributed to Palin. The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, portrays Donald Trump as a liberal in a new TV ad. Which presidential candidate supports higher taxes, national health care and the Wall Street bailout?asks the narratorin the Sept. 15 ad in Iowa as it shows photos of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It's Donald Trump. The ad then shows a clip of Trump saying in 2004: In many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. We have already fact-checked Trumps statements ontaxes(hes supported increases),health care(hes had different views over the years) and an attack about hisparty affiliation(he was once a Democrat). Here, we will fact-check if he supported the Wall Street bailout. Trump on the bailout In October 2008, Congress created a $700 billion emergency bailout fund called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP,  to rescue banks in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. The Club for Growthcitedthree statements by Trump in support of the bailout. However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work. On Sept. 30, 2008, CNNs Kiran Chetry asked Trump about the bailout days before its final passage. The ad includes this segment of that interview: Chetry:Do you think that this bailout plan needs to pass in some way, shape or form for things to stabilize? Trump replied: Well, I think it would be better if it passed. But the ad omits the rest of Trumps statement in which he expressed some doubt about the bailout: I'm not sure that it's going to work.Youknow, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot. I don't love the idea that the government's buying back all the bad loans. How about some of the good loans? You know? I don't like the idea that the government, frankly, is going to be negotiating with people to sell those loans, because maybe we'd be better off having the best bankers in the world do that. But I think overall, it's a probable positive, other than you have to control the price of oil. Because if you don't, whatever happens with the bailout, if you want to call it the bailout, whatever happens with the bailout, is will have no impact, no positive impact. OnLarry King Liveon April 15, 2009, King asked Trump his opinion of Obama and Trump turned to the bailout in part of his answer: I do agree with what they're doing with the banks. Whether they fund them or nationalize them, it doesn't matter, but you have to keep the banks going, Trump said. On Feb. 18, 2009, Trump talked about the bank bailout onDavid Letterman: The one thing is, the government came in and intelligently put money into the banks, so that if you have your money in CDs or whatever in the banks, youre not going to lose your money at least. In response to the ad, Trumptweeted: Little respected Club for Growth asked me for $1,000,000 -- I said NO. Now they are spending lobbyist and special interest money on ads! Trumps charge relates to a June 2 letter from Club for Growth president David McIntosh to Trump asking him to contribute $1 million to the group. Trump then issued apress releasesaying that the group was trying to shake him down. Club for Growth spokesman Doug Sachtleben told PolitiFact that Trump had asked for the meeting and was interested in donating to the group. Our ruling A Club for Growth TV ad states that Trump supports the Wall Street bailout. Trump made multiple statements in support of TARP, the bailout of the banks, in late 2008 and 2009. However, the ad omits that he raised concern that the banks had received billions and were not loaning them out. Overall, we rate this claim Mostly True. In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard:  Running Evolutions.com The Platinum Beard   Student from Cornell University Cuts 31lbs On University Budget! Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, was able to drop 31lbs off her waist in 1 month without ever using a dime of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project Amanda thought it would be perfect to use university funds to find out how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive piece of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as good as they promised. I am a single Mom with a kid at home and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss opportunities that are out there, and that is when I found out about combining Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all, I can tell that my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia: Rachel Graham Today Ask Rachel Graham how shes managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year and the formula is simple: Healthy food and exercise. No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes. Shes also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs and arms.  [...] I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible, Graham told TODAY. I used to feel as though it wasn't. That I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise. This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery":   We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all that she used to lose 31lbs so quickly. CNN: Tell us, how did you know where to start? Amanda: To be honest, I really didn't. I was given a budget for the project by the university, and I spent nearly all of it researching everything under the sun. I looked into other previous research, case studies, and even successful weight loss stories of others.   This story never appeared on CNN.  Not surprisingly the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what is apparently borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment, but have not yet received a reply.  Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate in a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A.  "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year."
  Today  3 October 2016. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change.