The Truth About Slenderman
On 31 May 2014, three 12-year-old girls embarked on a "birdwatching" expedition in a wooded area near their homes in Waukesha, Wisconsin that ended in one of them being stabbed 19 times and left for dead. Seriously injured, the victim managed to crawl to a nearby road, where she was found and taken to a hospital. She told police her friends had attacked her. The other two girls were arrested and charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide. The attack weapon was found among their belongings. They admitted to planning and executing the crime. Under interrogation, they claimed they did it to appease a supernatural being called Slenderman (aka Slender Man), who was described in a Newsweek article as "an evil character who lives only on the Internet," but in whom the accused attackers said they fervently believed: described According to the criminal complaint obtained by Newsweek, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, both 12, discovered Slender Man on Creepypasta Wiki, a website dedicated to Internet horror stories (its tagline: Proudly hosting 12,151 of your worst nightmares since 2010). They believed he was real. In early 2014, Geyser and Weier decided to become what they called proxies of Slender Man, thereby proving their dedication to him and his existence to skeptics. To do so, theyd have to kill someone. Creepypasta Wiki Although months in the planning, their mission did not succeed. The victim, Payton Leutner, recovered, though she still lives in fear for her life, her mother says. The accused were tried as adults and pleaded guilty to the attack but argued in court they weren't responsible for their actions due to mental illness. In December 2017, Weier was sentenced to 25 years in a psychiatric institution. Geyser has yet to face sentencing. The incident was cast as a cautionary tale for parents by Waukesha police chief Russell Jack, who cited it as a consequence of allowing children unsupervised access to the Internet: cited Keeping children safe is more challenging than in years past. The Internet has changed the way we live. It is full of information and wonderful sites that teach and entertain. The Internet can also be full of dark and wicked things. But although it's true there are "dark and wicked things" to be found on the Internet (as in life, generally), and children's use of the Internet ought indeed to be supervised, to suggest that the Slenderman materials viewed by the accused are "wicked," in any deeper sense than, say, a Stephen King novel is "wicked," is to misunderstand them. The Slenderman "mythos," as the accumulated stories, images, and commentary related to the character have come to be called, is a blend of fiction and folklore. It's a crowd-sourced horror story that hearkens back to boogeyman tales of old. boogeyman The first time the name "Slender Man" appeared anywhere in print or on screen was on the entertainment web site SomethingAwful.com on 10 June 2009. Someone started a thread in a discussion forum, essentially a Photoshop contest, entitled "Create Paranormal Images." Among the early entries was one posted under the pseudonym "Victor Surge" (later identified as member Eric Knudsen), consisting of an old photograph manipulated to depict a tall, faceless human-like figure with tentacle-like arms lurking in the shadows near a children's playground: SomethingAwful.com One of two recovered photographs from the Stirling City Library blaze. Notable for being taken the day which fourteen children vanished and for what is referred to as "The Slender Man". Deformities cited as film defects by officials. Fire at library occurred one week later. Actual photograph confiscated as evidence.  1986, photographer: Mary Thomas, missing since June 13th, 1986. The effect was understated, yet creepy. Inspired by the example, others contributed photos and backstory expanding on Surge's themes, and piecemeal construction of the Slenderman mythos, a collaborative project from the start, was underway. As Surge himself suggested, it was also, from the start, a patchwork of cultural influences: Where did you get the source for Slender Man? Or was he done from a scratch? The Slender Man as an idea was made-up off the top of my head, although the concept is based on a number of things that scare me. The name I thought up on the fly when I wrote that first bit. The asset I used for a couple of the pictures was the creepy tall guy from Phantasm, which sadly I have not seen, and the others various guys in suits. All of the things that aren't the torso and legs, like the tentacles and Slender Man's face, were painted from scratch however. By the time middle-schoolers Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier encountered the Slenderman character years later, the mythos had grown considerably and was being archived on fan sites like Creepypasta Wiki (creepypasta" being an Internet slang term for user-created horror stories and images). It's where, for example, the girls would have read that Slenderman uses fear to control people's minds, and then kills them: Creepypasta Wiki He is described as wearing a black suit strikingly similar to the visage of the notorious Men In Black, and as the name suggests, appears very thin and able to stretch his limbs and torso to inhuman lengths in order to induce fear and ensnare his prey. Once his arms are outstretched, his victims are put into something of a hypnotized state, where they are utterly helpless to stop themselves from walking into them. He is also able to create tendrils from his fingers and back that he uses to walk on in a similar fashion to Doctor Octopus. The superhuman stretching ability could also be seen as a similarity between himself and Mr. Fantastic. Whether he absorbs, kills, or merely takes his victims to an undisclosed location or dimension is also unknown as there are never any bodies or evidence left behind in his wake to deduce a definite conclusion. It's also where they would have learned what a Slenderman "proxy" is: proxy Proxy (plural: Proxies) is the term given to those who serve The Slender Man. The theory behind the name is that Proxies are entities or people who are under the influence or control of the Slender Man (or the same force that influences Slender Man), and act based on its wants and needs  hence, Proxies serve as an in-between (i.e. a proxy) for Slender Man. And it's where they would have been introduced to "evidence" that Slenderman sightings date back to the 16th-century in Germany, where woodcuts documenting reports of a murderous so-called "Tall Man" (Der Gromann) with a spear-like arm and superfluous legs were allegedly found:  Der Grossman  According to legend, he was a fairy who lived in the Black Forest. Bad children who crept into the woods at night would be relentlessly chased by Der Gromann, who wouldn't leave them be until he either caught them or they were forced to tell their parents of their wrongdoing. Like other items purporting to constitute visual proof of Slenderman's existence, however, the woodcut is merely a doctored version of a Hans Holbein print (circa 1497, below right) depicting a knight in armor "pierced by Death's lance": print   It's hard not to admire the creativity that went into Slenderman. It's equally hard  at least, from our point of view  to subscribe to the view that it was done for a malevolent purpose or represents a "dark and wicked" side of the Internet. It's more accurate to characterize it as an ad hoc communal art project, or, if you're a folklorist and your bailiwick includes studying the spontaneous generation of stories, an updated, Internet-savvy instance of the age-old process of legend creation. American folklorist Andrea Kitta expressed just this view in a January 2017 interview with the web site inews.co.uk: inews.co.uk The internet is certainly helping to spread modern urban myths wider and faster than before. Kitta argues, however, that they are more or less exactly like traditional folklore. The only difference in some cases is that people may include a picture with the story, which adds to its believability. But all of these forms of folklore share many similarities. They tend to be set in the local or historic past, they are believable, and they contain variation. Folklorists see such tales as imbued with deeper social meanings. Shira Chess, author of Folklore, Horror Stories and the Slender Man (2014), explored these in comments to The Washington Post: We tell ourselves stories because we (humans) are storytelling animals, she wrote in an e-mail. And, to that end, horror stories take on a specific significance and importance because they function metaphorically  the horror stories that are the best are often metaphors for other issues that affect our lives on both cultural and personal levels. Slender Man, Chess says, is a metaphor for helplessness, power differentials, and anonymous forces. Hes an infinitely morphable stand-in for things we can neither understand nor control, universal fears that can drive people to great lengths  even, it would appear, very scary, cold-blooded lengths. Chess seems to be saying it's the feeling of helplessness and fear underlying them, not horror stories themselves, that can drive people to "cold-blooded lengths." Andrea Kitta isn't so sure: Kitta believes that urban legends are sometimes wrongly blamed for shocking events. However, she also suggests it is possible they can exert an influence too. Sometimes people use folklore as a scapegoat, perhaps most famously in the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. But we would be remiss to assume that folklore is safe or benign. We're not in a position to judge to what extent, if any, the Slenderman materials viewed by Payton Leutner's accused attackers may have "exerted an influence" on their behavior. We would point out, however, that reports of such incidents have been very few and far between since the character was created in 2009. Perhaps, as Kitta says, folklore isn't always benign, but we should be wary when it's blamed for the bad things people do. Butler, Mark."Slender Man: How a Modern Urban Legend Came to Haunt a Generation."
inews.co.uk.17 January 2017. Dewey, Caitlin."The Complete History of 'Slender Man,' the Meme That Compelled Two Girls to Stab a Friend."
The Washington Post.27 July 2016. Jones, Abigail."The Girls Who Tried to Kill for Slender Man."
Newsweek.13 August 2014. Vielmetti, Bruce."Girl Believed She Had to Kill  or Be Killed by Slender Man, Attorney Says."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.16 February 2015. Associated Press. "Girl Gets 25 Years in Mental Hospital in Slender Man Case."
22 December 2017. Creepypasta Wiki."The Slender Man."
When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. Claim:  Account describes women manipulating the short sales of properties. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2013] Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Leisa and I about an "Obama supporter" he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac, MI. We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. As a Realtor for the past 28 years I thought Id seen or heard it all. Until now. I was showing homes in Pontiac, MI. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (A short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each others homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said "We have two different last names so no one knows the difference". She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100K on their homes and were in the process of buying each others homes for about 10-15K cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing. My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving Section 8 Vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said "Thats the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each others homes so we dont even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing "Thank you Obama.... thank you Obama." So here is the bottom line Both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each them each and every month .... perhaps forever! And I also would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance. These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! Im sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might OFFEND someone or lose a vote or two. By the way ... she had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen TV's and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture. 'TIS THE NEW 'AMERICAN WAY' Origins:  The terms "under water" and "short sale" in reference to home mortgages have entered common parlance in recent years due to a severe downturn in the housing market.  The first refers to a mortgage that is greater than the property's current market value: If a home buyer owes $600,000 on a property that he originally bought for $900,000 but that is now valued at only $300,000, his property is described as being under water. The second refers to a process which has been used by some borrowers to keep afloat financially by shedding their under water properties. When a property owner holds an under water mortgage and can no longer make his mortgage payments, one remedy is for the lienholder to agree to a short sale: that is, to allow the owner to sell the property for less than the amount still owed on the loan.  A short sale leaves the lender taking a loss, but it is often preferable to the alternative of the lender's having to foreclose on the property and resell it  themselves (with no guarantee the resale would bring in any more money than the short sale did).     The unpaid balance still owed to a lienholder by the property owner after a short sale is known as a "deficiency."  If the owner with the aforementioned $600,000 mortgage short sells his home for $250,000, he has incurred a $350,000 deficiency.  A short sale may or may not relieve the borrower of the obligation to repay that deficiency: whether it does depends on the agreement made between the lienholder and the property owner prior to the short sale.  (The amount of a deficiency is considered by the IRS to be a benefit which is taxable as income, but the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 currently allows taxpayers to exclude income from a discharge of debt on their principal residence.) The January 2013 item reproduced above purportedly tells of two women who are supposedly gaming the system by agreeing to buy each other's homes at short sales (in contravention of the rules), then collect a monthly housing assistance stipend for being renters in the homes they formerly owned.  The item contains no verifiable details such as names, dates, or addresses (only the mention of a city or state which changes from version to version), but the scenario described would require a number of implausibilities to all be true:  A woman who was engaging in a scheme to defraud multiple lienholders and government programs would openly admit to that scheme and describe it in detail to a stranger.  The buyers and sellers involved in short sales are required to provide full financial disclosures and are subject to asset checks,making it highly unlikely that this cross-buying scheme could work.  A lienholder would almost certainly refuse to proceed with a short sale by an owner who had just bought another property, or to agree to a short sale home purchase by a buyer who herself currently had a property in short sale.  The $3,000 in relocation assistance provided to those who short sell their homes under the  Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives  (HAFA) program also requires financial disclosure and is not available to those who have purchased a house within the last 12 months, so neither sister would qualify. HAFA  Section 8 assistance offered under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (which provides payment of rental housing assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income renters) is income- and asset-based.  Someone who not only owned her own residential property but was also functioning as a Section 8 landlord could not possibly qualify for Section 8 housing assistance.  Moreover, in many areas the waiting list for renters seeking to obtain Section 8 funds is years-long. Also, little of what is referenced here has any direct connection to President Obama. Although the HAFA program which provides $3,000 in relocation assistance was introduced by the Treasury Department under the Obama administration in 2009, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act (which exempts deficiencies in short sales from being considered taxable income) was passed in 2007 during the administration of George W. Bush, and Section 8 housing assistance was established under the Housing Act of 1937 passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Last updated:  7 February 2013 Claim:  The Monsanto Protection Act creates a "precedent-setting limitation onjudicial review of genetically-engineered crops."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March  2013]  I received an email regarding The Monsanto Protection Act is this true? On March 21st, Congress passed The Monsanto Protection Act that was slipped into a short term budget resolution. This dangerous rider found in Section 735 of the bill would create a precedent-setting limitation on judicial review of genetically-engineered crops, allowing them to be planted without federal safeguards in place that protect our environment,family farmers and citizens. Call President Obama today; tell him to strike section 735 from the 2013 Continuing Resolution.  Add your voice to the groundswell in response to this dangerous bill! Together we WILL be setting right this gross imbalance! Origins:  On 26 March 2013, President Obama signed into law a bill passed by the House and Senate earlier that month known as the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013" to provide funding for various federal agencies through the end of the 2013 fiscal year.  One of the provisions included in that bill in the section for "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies" was Section 735, variously dubbed the "Farmer Assurance Provision" or the "Monsanto Protection Act," an inclusion which reignited a clash between the agribusiness industry and food safety groups.  The former maintains that the Farmer Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system to force farmers to abandon or destroy genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops that have already received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety approval; the latter assert that Congress kowtowed to big business by sneaking into an appropriations bill a provision that allows large biotech companies like Monsanto to do an end run around the court system and avoid legitimate legal challenges to the safety of their products: bill Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act's content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed  little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings. The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted [for the bill] in order to avert a government shutdown. The "Farmer Assurance Provision" is not new to 2013: it was also part of the initial draft of a FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill in June 2012.  The text of the provision (Section 735) states that: bill In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretarys evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant ProtectionAct. The provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status to allow growers to continue the cultivation of biotech crops that had previously been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while legal challenges to the safety of those crops are underway, and it prevents courts from interceding in the review process  a situation which critics contend unconstitutionally bars the court system from taking part in ensuring the safety of food products: The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds  which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company  and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits. But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear. The American Soybean Association (ASA) and other major agricultural associations expressed support for the provision in 2012, stating that it "addresses a costly vulnerability in the regulatory process for biotechnology that is discouraging innovation in agriculture and unnecessarily putting farmers at financial risk" by allowing biotech opponents to mount challenges to GE crop approvals based on procedural, rather than scientific, issues: support Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products. These lawsuits have also created tremendous resource constraints for  USDA and have resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive in the world market. [This provision] provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. The inclusion of [this provision] is a positive step to ensure that U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops. This legislative solution ensures that national agricultural policy is not being decided by the court system while providing a level of certainty that is critical to ensure that our agricultural producers continue to lead the world. Dozens of food and consumer groups opposed the provision on the grounds that it was unnecessary and undermined the judiciary's authority to regulate the growing of genetically engineered crops:  opposed Reeling from federal court decisions that have found approvals of several genetically engineered (GE) crops to be unlawful, the biotech industry has quietly slipped a policy rider into the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill now being debated in the House Appropriations Committee. The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards. Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks. Far from safeguarding farmers, the only parties whose interests are "assured" by this rider are those of GE crop developers.  The "farmer assurance provision" has very little to do with farmers and everything to do with the developers of GE crops. It would strip the Judiciary of its authority to fully adjudicate violations of law by USDA and compel USDA to take actions that might harm farmers and the environment  all to "assure" the profits of a handful of biotech companies, including Monsanto, Dow and Bayer CropScience. Every court that has reversed a USDA decision to approve a GE crop has carefully weighed the interests of all affected farmers, as is already required by law. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed. USDA already has working mechanisms in place to allow partial approvals, and the Department has used them, making this provision completely unnecessary. The provisions of this bill (including the "Monsanto Protection Act") were originally to remain in effect for six months, until the end of the  fiscal year on 30 September 2013.  The bill was later extended to expire on 15 December 2013.     Last updated:  13 September 2013    Sheets, Connor Adams.  "Furor Growing Against Obama Over 'Monsanto Protection Act.'"   Interntional Business Times.  27 March 2013.    Sheets, Connor Adams.  "Monsanto Protection Act."   Interntional Business Times.  27 March 2013. In mid-June 2021, viral social media posts claimed a U.S. Republican congressman who has previously been accused of attempting to downplay the seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack refused to shake hands with a police officer who had tried that day to protect the federal building from the violent mob of Donald Trump supporters. seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack Donald Trump Before we unpack that accusation, some context: On June 15, the House of Representatives approved a proposal on a 406-21 vote to award the highest congressional honor to the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for protecting the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack. Jan. 6 attack. Those who voted "no" on the measure to recognize officers with the Congressional Gold Medal were all Republicans who said they had qualms with describing the events of Jan. 6 as an "insurrection" or the Capitol as a "temple of democracy," among other issues, according to news reports and the congressional voting record. Republicans news reports congressional voting record The day after that vote, a group including MPD officer Michael Fanone, who was injured during the Jan. 6 attack, visited the Capitol to try to meet with the above-mentioned Republicans and share his experience of trying to fend off the mob. On an elevator during that June 16 tour, Fanone said, he introduced himself to Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde  who is one of the aforementioned 21 Republicans  and the congressman did not shake his hand. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who represents a portion of California's Bay Area, was among the first people to report the alleged elevator encounter on Twitter.  Twitter "Fanone introduced himself as 'someone who fought to defend the Capitol' and put out his hand. Clyde refused to shake it," he tweeted June 16 around 3:30 p.m. EST.   Multiple news outlets ran with the story, including The Washington Post, which claimed in a headline: "GOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6." Multiple news outlets claimed in a headline A spokesperson for Swalwell told Snopes that Fanone had called the congressman "immediately" after the run-in occured to share what had happened. Then, after Swalwell's tweet went viral, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican serving Illinois, said he called the police officer, and he confirmed with him the alleged event took place. said As posts about the interaction spread rapidly online, Fanone went on CNN's "Don Lemon Tonight" to explain the incident for himself: CNN's Fanone: I saw Congressman Clyde standing outside of an elevator. I was there with also [Capitol Police Officer] Harry Dunn, who accompanied me throughout the Capitol, went into the elevator. I told, I, you know, greeted Congressman Clyde. I was very cordial. Harry Dunn I extended my hand to shake his hand. He just stared at me. I asked him if he was going to shake my hand, and he told me that he didn't know who I was. So, I introduced myself. I said that I was officer Micheal Fanone; that I was a D.C. Metropolitan police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol and, as a result, I suffered a traumatic brain injury, as well as a heart attack, after having been tased numerous times at the base of my skull, as well as being severely beaten. At that point, the Congressman turned away from me, pulled out a cell phone. It looked like he was attempting to pull up like an audio recording app on his phone and, again, like never acknowledged me at any point. As soon as the elevator's doors open, he ran as quickly as he could like a coward. Lemon: Like a coward, didn't shake your hand. Fanone: Correct, absolutely not. In summary, Fanone told the news anchor that he extended his hand to Clyde, and the Congressman responded saying he didn't recognize the police officer. After that, Fanone said he introduced himself as a "police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol," and then Clyde allegedly "turned away." The police officer likened the interaction to "Clyde giving the middle finger to myself and every other member of [MPD] and U.S. Capitol Police that responded that day," according to a recording of his CNN appearance. No photo or video evidence existed to corroborate Fanone's story. However, Harry Dunn, a 13-year veteran of the Capitol Police, told Snopes he was in the elevator, too, and verified the key points of Fanone's CNN interview in an email to Snopes, displayed below:   In other words, he told us that both police officers "said hello" to the Congressman and when Fanone extended his hand, "Rep Clyde looked down at Mike's hand and looked away almost immediately." Dunn's account of what happened next matched Fanone's (Fanone asked Clyde if he was going to shake his hand, Clyde said he did not know who he was, and Fanone introduced himself). "As Mike was doing that, Clyde kept inching as close to the wall as he could," Dunn told Snopes. "He was fidgeting with his phone and ... opened the video recorder mode and started to record. Mike and I looked at each other and shook our heads and we both said 'unbelievable.'" Snopes contacted Clyde's office for his response to the accusations, but we have not heard back. (The congressman also did not respond to other news media, including The Washington Post, Business Insider, and CNN.) The Washington Post Business Insider CNN Nothing leads us to believe Fanone's story isn't accurate, and Dunn's corroboration as an eyewitness is enough to confirm the claim as true. The caveat, however, is that without the congressman's own explanation for his actions, all possible explanations for why he did not appear to accept Fanone's greeting are subjective. We only have Fanone's and Dunn's word for the claim that he was fully aware of the police officer's invitation to shake hands and consciously rejected it. It's possible that Clyde did not hear or understand Fanone's introduction, for whatever reasons. Perhaps he was wearing wireless headphones or another Bluetooth device that prevented him from hearing, for example.  Our invitation to Clyde to tell his side of the story still stands. This report was updated to include comments from Rep. Eric Swalwell's spokesperson. President Barack Obama this week touted the progress his administration has made in recovering from the economic recession, focusing on developments in engineering and manufacturing. Thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, the good news is the economy is growing stronger, he said in a speech on Jan. 15, 2014, at North Carolina State University. Our businesses have now created more than 8 million new jobs since we hit bottom. Because of an all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world. PolitiFact wanted to know if Obamas claim gives us an accurate picture of U.S. oil numbers. A spokesman offered up thisWhite House blog postthat touches on Obamas point in more detail. Domestic crude oil production surpassed crude oil imports in October 2013 for the first time since 1995. We also consulted the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to theirNovember 2013 report, the United Statesproducedan average of 7.8 million barrels of oil per day in October andimported7.5 million barrels of oil per day. So Obamas numbers add up. How did we arrive at this point? Kenneth Medlock, an economics professor at Rice University who serves as the senior director for the Center for Energy Studies, said there are a couple of reasons why production exceeds imports. Yes, we are producing more than we import now, but that owes to both increased production domestically and reduced demand,Medlock said. The reduced demand is due in part to the recession. Its no surprise that people cut back on gasoline consumption when theres less money in their wallets, so that lowers demand. And if demand is down, the United States doesnt need to import as much oil supply. Another cause of reduced demand is increased energy efficiency. Over the last few years, rising popularity of fuel-efficient vehicles and other innovations have led consumers and businesses to spend less on utilities and at the pump, said John Lowe, a senior associate dean and energy law professor at Southern Methodist University. Aside from reduced demand, Medlock also mentioned increased production as another reason the United States is producing more oil than it's importing. We can credit increased domestic production to innovation in regulatory infrastructure. That includes factors like the ability for companies to negotiate directly with private landowners about mineral rights, as well as open access to pipelines. But we cant tie these developments back to one president, Medlock said. They go back a couple of decades. Still, its worth noting that Obama is a known supporter of energy efficiency. When he campaigned for office, he promised to reduce the countrys dependency on foreign oil. In 2012, we rated thatPromise Keptbased on projections of the impact of his administrations fuel efficiency standards. Our ruling Obama said the United States is producing more oil domestically than its importing from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. That claim is on the money. However, a lot of this has been in the works for awhile, including dynamics that pre-date the Obama administration. Experts told us the new dynamic is due to factors like the recession, increased fuel efficiency and ramped up domestic oil production. As a simple statement on where we stand on oil exports vs. imports, though, Obamas claim is accurate. We rate it True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In October 2020, shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tested positive for COVID-19, a rumor started circulating on social media that the White House gift shop was selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin:   WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is selling a "Trump Defeats COVID-19" commemorative coin. However, this website is not the official gift shop of the White House, the government does not dictate what this business sells, and the Trump administration does not make a profit from its sales.  WhiteHouseGiftShop.com This isn't the first time this misleadingly named gift shop has caused confusion online. In April 2020, a similar rumor went viral after social media users claimed that the United States government was selling "Coronavirus Task Force" coins at its gift shop. Again, while the coins were real, the website selling them was not officially affiliated with the government. The website's owner, Anthony Giannini, told us at the time that the White House Gift Shop "is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations." While this website does not have any current ties to the government, it does have a long (and somewhat convoluted) history that can reportedly be traced back to the 1950s when U.S. President Truman set up a gift shop in the basement of the White House: While it traces its history to a 1950 authorization by President Harry Truman, the headquarters of the White House Gift Shop has been in Lititz since 2012. Its operated by Lititz (Pennsylvania) resident Anthony Giannini with his wife, Helen. Its very weird and very cool, Giannini says of the shops curious history and its current location. After a failed assassination attempt of Truman in 1950 left one member of White House Police dead, Truman authorized a fund to benefit the family of the slain officer and the others who were injured in the attack by two Puerto Rican nationalists. When the White House Police became the Secret Service, the Truman-authorized fund became the Secret Service Uniformed Division Benefit Fund. The fund was replenished from the sale of items from a gift shop originally set up in the basement of the White House but eventually relocated to the nearby executive mansion. While Giannini was granted a trademark to use the name "White House Gift Shop," this business has not been officially affiliated with the government since at least 2012.  Umble, Chad.  "From 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Warwick Center: How the White House Gift Shop wound up in Lititz."
  Lancaster Online.  27 May 2019. On 2 June 2015, New York firefighter Michael O'Connell took to Facebook to ask social media users for help in locating a helmet that had been stolen from his house a few years prior. O'Connell posted a photograph of his son with the helmet and explained that he had worn it throughout his FDNY career, including during 9/11 and its aftermath: Facebook   This was my FDNY helmet I wore my entire career including 9/11/01. It was stolen from my home a while back. I know it's a long shot but if enough people share maybe it turns up or is sent back so I can keep it in my family! Thanks! The NYC Wire Fire Facebook page helped spread O'Connell's message by resharing his post with the caption, "In case anyone comes across this ... maybe the thief is stupid enough to try to sell on eBay." Within a week, the message reportedly reached more than 8 million people and had been reshared hundreds of thousands of times. Unfortunately, despite the wide dissemination of this Facebook post, it did not result in the return of O'Connell's FDNY helmet. Facebook reportedly AM New York reported on 24 June 2015, a few weeks after the Facebook post went viral, that while O'Connell had not been reunited with his helmet, he did receive an outpouring of support from the community and two replica helmets from "good Samaritans hoping to sooth the sting" of his loss: reported Retired firefighter Michael O'Connell's social media campaign to retrieve his stolen FDNY helmet has gotten him the next best thing -- two replicas thanks to some good Samaritans. "There are still amazing people in this world!," O'Connell said. O'Connell, 39, recently turned to Facebook to track down the significant memento that he wore at Ground Zero following 9/11 and hoped to leave to his three children. What came back instead were two painstakingly created replica helmets from good Samaritans hoping to soothe the sting of his loss and an avalanche of human kindness and compassion. "I'm taking the good out of this story, not the bad," said O'Connell, who was forced to retire from the FDNY after being diagnosed with sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease that attacks the lungs and lymphatic system, in 2007. "We live in an amazing world. So many people are willing to help. I hope people recognize this more than all the hate out there," he said. Although this FDNY firefighter's message was originally posted in June 2015, social media users have continued to share his plea on Facebook over the ensuing years. In April 2019, for example, a screenshot of O'Connell's message that was posted by the "Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department" racked up more than 600,000 shares. Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department When viewers learned that this message was nearly four years old by the time they encountered it in April 2019, they were left wondering if O'Connell had ever been reunited with his firefighter helmet. Unfortunately, that's not the case. O'Connell told us in April 2019: "I appreciate everyones support in this matter. Unfortunately, my helmet was never returned! Hoping that it will make its way back home one day as I am a retired FF who has fallen sick to my work on September 11th and this was the helmet that I wore that day and throughout my career!" Stepansky, Joseph.  "FDNY Firefighter's Helmet Worn During 9/11 Stolen from Long Island Home."
  New York Daily Post.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Firefighter Michael O'Connell Searching for 9/11 Helmet."
  AM New York.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Smoke Eater Michael O'Connell Receives Two Helmets for the One He Lost."
  AM New York.  24 June 2015. As a series of hurricanes made landfall in August and September 2017, those living in the affected areas have been searching for a communication tool that would enable them to send messages in the event of a service outage. An app called "FireChat" is one of the most widely suggested tools, due to its purported ability to send messages without an internet connection:   web site When no Internet connection or cellular networks are available, FireChat uses the radios inside our phones to connect them directly with one another. In that case (which is also called "offline" or off-the-grid), messages will travel up to 70 meters (210 feet) from one phone to the next. If there are more than two devices, they will form a network and messages will bounce from one device to the next, thus extending the range of the network. The more people use FireChat, the better the network gets for everybody. This is why FireChat works really well for very large groups of people. In other words, FireChat wouldn't be able to send a text message from Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington (a distance of more than 3,000 miles) unless an unbroken chain of tens of thousands of FireChat users spanned that distance. However, it can be used to send messages within a community of FireChat users without the Internet: used What's unique about FireChat is that it also works when there is no Internet connection or cellular phone coverage. It even works on a plane. When your community gets together, it creates your own free communication network and doesnt rely on traditional networks. You don't have to do anything special: just keep FireChat on your smartphone and keep Bluetooth and WiFi on (yes, even if there is no Internet access). This is game-changing since you can create local communication networks at zero cost and also stay connected during sports games, rallies, music festivals, and in emergency situations.  The MIT Technology Review explained more about how the app works in an article that was published shortly after FireChat's initial release in 2014: explained FireChat makes use of a feature Apple introduced in the latest version of its iOS mobile software, iOS7, called multipeer connectivity. This feature allows phones to connect to one another directly using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi as an alternative to the Internet. If youre using FireChat, its nearby chat room lets you exchange messages with other users within 100 feet without sending data via your cellular provider. Micha Benoliel, CEO and cofounder of startup Open Garden, which made FireChat, says the app shows how smartphones can be set free from cellular networks. He hopes to enable many more Internet-optional apps with the upcoming release of software tools that will help developers build FireChat-style apps for iPhone, or for Android, Mac, and Windows devices. This approach is very interesting for multiplayer gaming and all kinds of communication apps, says Benoliel. Christophe Daligault, the vice president of sales and marketing for the app, told NPR that it works on a "mesh" network: NPR  Mesh networks can be used to set up temporary networks in disaster zones, and even to spread the Internet to remote areas beyond the reach of existing wireless networks and cables. That's the technology that Google and Facebook are counting on for their plans of spreading the Internet across the globe with balloons and drones.  [...] "Once you build a mesh network ... now you have a network that is resilient, self-healing, cannot be controlled by any central organization, cannot be shut down and is always working," Daligault says. "I think that solves many other drawbacks or challenges of the mobile broadband Internet today." He says none of this would be possible without the rapid spread of smartphones, because that means no extra hardware is needed. "Each [phone] becomes a router and in a sense you're growing the Internet  everyone who joins the mesh network creates an extension of the Internet," Daligault says. "In a year or two from now, I think people won't even remember that you had to be on Wi-Fi or get a cell signal to be able to communicate." The FireChat app can send messages without Internet service as stated. However, the app does some have limitations. Potential users, especially those searching for an emergency communication tool to use during a natural disaster, should visit the FireChat home page to make sure that they understand how the app works: FireChat The messaging app Zello was also widely suggested for emergency communications in September 2017. Although there are several benefits to that particular app during an emergency (it is billed as a "walkie-talkie" app), Zello does not work without the internet.  Zello Toor, Amar.  "This App Lets Rescue Workers Send Offline Alerts When Disaster Strikes"
  The Verge.  19 May 2016. Yu, Alan.  "How One App Might Be A Step Toward Internet Everywhere."
  NPR.  7 April 2014. Simonite, Tom.  "The Latest Chat App for iPhone Needs No Internet Connection."
  MIT Technology Review.  28 March 2014. On 10 November 2015, the web comic The Oatmeal rekindled interest in an incident from the early life of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry: the 1947 crash of Pan Am Flight 121 during its leg from Karachi to Istanbul, an accident that killed seven crew members and seven passengers and left Roddenberry, who was a member of the flight crew, with "a couple of broken ribs and a bruise or two": interest   The Oatmeal comic (which can be viewed in its entirety here) related that after the plane crashed, 26-year-old Gene Roddenberry (a pilot who flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and worked as a commercial pilot for Pan Am airlines after the war) pulled passengers from the burning wreckage and then led them to a village where they were able to call for help. While some readers were skeptical about the fantastical story,The Oatmeal provided a link to its source material,Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, which recounts the incident at length in Chapter 5. here source Although The Oatmeal described Roddenberry as the "co-pilot" of the flight, other sourcesidentifiedRoddenberry asthe "third officer without flight responsibilities" or "a deadheading" pilot. Nonetheless, Roddenberry did helm a portion the flight while the captain took a break, and there's no disputing the fact that he helped 22 people survive the crash of Pan Am Flight 121 in 1947 after an engine fire forced the flight down in a desert and the plane ignited: sources helped The flight's Third Officer, Eugene Wesley Roddenberry, of River Edge, New Jersey, purser Anthony Volpe and stewardess Jane Bray helped evacuate the wrecked airliner. "We who could jumped out. The other survivors were handed down and we dragged them away and tried to do what we could for them. We had to carry the Rani away. She had a head injury and had lost some teeth and was in a rather bad way, but we finally quieted her,"Bray recalled. "All we could do then was watch while the plane burned, slowly at first and then fiercely. It must have burned for hours, but I do not remember too well. There wasn't any sound but those flames. Everybody who died must have been killed outright." As described in Star Trek Creator, Roddenberry was instrumental in helping to save surviving passengers: The second the plane came to a rest, Roddenberry, Volpe, and Bray quickly began evacuating their charges through the ruptured fuselage. As the fire in the front of the plane approached their section, they knew they only had seconds to get everyone out. Moving as fast as they could, they pushed open the cabin door and guided the uninjured passengers out. Gene and Tony handed down the injured, then the uninjured passengers on the ground dragged them to safety. Even with the composed and focused actions of the surviving crew, the evacuation did not go smoothly. After most of the passengers had been removed, the seatbelt of the Majarani of Pheleton would not release, trapping her in the burning wreckage. The large woman was hysterical. Gene forced the belt open and rescued the Indian royal. She and her son, the prince, were put with the others on the sand, away from the plane and the fire. Gene pulled out several people who were themselves on fire and used a pillow he found on the ground to smother the flames. On board, the flames were growing in intensity, so he could only make a couple of trips into the passenger compartment. The last passenger he pulled out died in his arms. The wind changed, blowing the burning gasoline directly over the ship's wreckage; Gene and Volpe were unable to rescue any more passengers out of the plane. The other passengers safe for the moment, the trio turned their thoughts to their friends on the flight deck. They ran around the burning fuselage and wings to the front of the plane. Looking in the cockpit windows, they could see the flight crew sitting at their stations, slumped over their seats, dead or unconscious. Frantically pounding on the windows, Volpe, Bray, and Roddenberry tried to rouse their friends until the flames drove them back. The Roddenberry Foundation recounted a similar version of the story, noting that the creator ofStar Trek was awarded a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts after the crash: recounted At war's end, he joined Pan American World Airways. It was on a flight from Calcutta that his plane lost two engines and caught fire in flight, crashing at night in the Syrian desert. As the senior surviving officer, Roddenberry sent two Englishmen swimming across the Euphrates River in quest of the source of a light he had observed just prior to the crash impact. The Englishmen reached a Syrian military outpost, which sent a small plane to investigate. Roddenberry returned with the small plane to the outpost, where he broadcast a message that was relayed to Pan Am, which sent a stretcher plane to the rescue. Roddenberry later received a Civil Aeronautics commendation for his efforts during and after the crash. In mid-2015, social media users got their collective hopes up about the advent of the pizza vending machine, an innovation that would enable them to obtain one of their favorite things (pizza) while simultaneously avoiding one of its least popular aspects (human interaction). Tweets and Facebook posts about the pizza vending machine (called "Let's Pizza") touted the announcement of this "new" concept: @italiaricci You should get one for your house! #PizzaVendingMachine #NowIWantOne pic.twitter.com/3SV5Z9bAuX @italiaricci #PizzaVendingMachine #NowIWantOne pic.twitter.com/3SV5Z9bAuX  Stephanie (@Xxsteff22xX) July 1, 2015 July 1, 2015  Photo: #PizzaVendingMachine this is so cool!!! https://t.co/V0S2MtG9sB #PizzaVendingMachine https://t.co/V0S2MtG9sB  Linda Glatham (@LindaGlatham) June 30, 2015 June 30, 2015  The tone of the social media buzz suggested that pizza vending machines were, if not yet popping up all over the place, at least a soon-to-be common sight. (Although hot food vending machines are somewhat common, the novelty of one devoted specifically to pizza apparently fires the imagination.) Interest in the concept in mid-2015 appeared to stem in part from a confusing article titled "Watch This Vending Machine Make Pizza" that was dated 27 June 2015 but had been originally published on 21 March 2014, featuring a YouTube clip uploaded in February 2013 that was filmed in 2012: published During our trip to Italy in 2012, in the little town of Sorrento, my wife and I discovered a Lets Pizza vending machine that promised freshly made pizza in just 2.5 minutes and all for 3 euros. It was such a novel idea, we figured we had to film the whole process.  In a 5 March 2014 article published in The Gate entertainment magazine, the author described encountering one of these contraptions in Sorrento, Italy, the same place where the video clip seen above was shot: article My last travel piece about Sorrento was filled with details about why I loved this beautiful town along the coast of Italy. There was one other reason why I loved the town though, and it all came down to a magical vending machine that made pizzas. Yes, its a pizza vending machine (called Lets Pizza), and it makes them from scratch. For 3 euros, this machine mixes up dough from scratch, covers it in pizza sauce and cheese, and then bakes itall in less than 2-and-a-half minutes. On 14 June 2012, the pizza vending machine branded "Let's Pizza" was covered by The Frisky in an article that touted the machines as soon to arrive in the U.S.: article Turns out the pizza gods have heard our prayers, because an innovative pizza vending machine called Lets Pizza is finally making its way to the States. The Lets Pizza has been popular in Europe for years (for obvious reasons), but heres what Americans can expect ... A Facebook page for Let's Pizza UK also promoted the concept, but that page hasn't been updated since 2011, and the mid-2015 reaction to the pizza vending machine rumors that circulated on social media indicated that if any of the machines already existed in the United Kingdom, they weren't very popular or well-known. Let's Pizza UK In April 2015, Rochester television station WHEC tweeted about pizza vending machines: Local business offers pizza vending machines @whec_rleclair has the story https://t.co/K0F8flxpFb @whec_rleclair https://t.co/K0F8flxpFb  news10nbc (@news10nbc) April 21, 2015 April 21, 2015  However, that tweet linked to an on-site article describing a different pizza vending machine, Pizzametry, that was still in the conceptual stages: article It's a pizza vending machine that creates hot, fresh pies and the prototype is in Webster. So the search is on for investors, possible manufacturers and vendors to help Pizzametry grow along with the upstate economy and its all thanks to the pizza lovers of the Rochester region ... The pizzas will sell for about $4 to $6. The machines can be built for $28,000. A Daily Mail article published in July 2014 reported the "Let's Pizza" machines had not caught on after their 2009 unveiling, primarily due to their considerable size and cost: article The Let's Pizza machine was unveiled by Mr Torghele in 2009 but has been slow to catch on. The downside is that it is each one is the size of nearly three average vending machines. It also retails for more than ten times the amount, at $32,000. When the meme peaked, there was perhaps at least one "Let's Pizza" pizza vending machine operating in Sorrento, Italy -- but predictions of its immigration to the United States were then largely unfulfilled. But in 2016, the Tampa Bay Times reported that a handful of the machines popped up in Florida; at least one more was spotted in Ohio: reported Guys, the stories are true! Xavier now has North America's first Pizza ATM and we got it j https://t.co/oVJlzHXjsv pic.twitter.com/mbTvsQQmpz https://t.co/oVJlzHXjsv pic.twitter.com/mbTvsQQmpz  Xavier Admissions (@XUAdmissions) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  In January 2017, Grub Street noted that "after nearly four years of teasing," an unreported number pizza vending machines were scheduled to be installed that month. Little Caesar's announced a "Pizza Portal" in August 2017, but the technology still required a trip to the store to pick up a pizza. Although a handful of pizza vending machines appeared in the United States after the meme circulated, they remained few and far between as of late 2017. noted announced