Was StopWatt Created by Elon Musk and Tesla?
One series of online scams that seemingly never ends is the false claim that Tesla CEO Elon Musk had involvement in the creation of an inexpensive "electricity-saving" device that's about the size of a plug-in night light. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was also misleadingly mentioned as purportedly having endorsed the products, too. StopWatt is one of many names of a cheap and constantly rebranded "electricity-saving box" product that scammers have misleadingly associated with Musk, Granholm, Tesla (the company), and even Nikola Tesla himself. Pro Power Saver was one of the other rebranded product names, as we previously reported. reported According to images of such products, the only words that appeared on the physical devices were, "Intelligent Energy Saver. Electricity-Saving Box. The Result Is the Best." That last bit about "the result is the best" appeared to be poorly-translated English. Names like StopWatt and Pro Power Saver don't appear on the products, since the rebranding from "electricity-saving box" was apparently only a marketing tactic and had no bearing on the creation of the device. Scams for these "electricity-saving boxes" usually begin with an online ad displayed on a website or in an email newsletter that claims the compact, inexpensive device can save homeowners 90% off of their utility bill. Those ads then lead to a scammy article that falsely claims Musk created StopWatt.  Just as we previously wrote about the Pro Power Saver scam, with StopWatt, we don't recommend trusting any claims that say homeowners will be able to save such an enormous percentage off of their electricity bills. If this was truly possible, it would be one of the most popular products around today. Always remember with online offers that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. As for the scammy article, it often bears the publisher name of Fox News. However, Fox News never published this story: Reducing Electricity Bills by 90%! Elon Musk's Revolutionary Device Designed Personally for Middle-aged, Elderly, and Low-income Groups Faces Suppression by Power Giants, Facing Production Crisis? Elon Musk, the genius CEO behind solar power giant Tesla has been the talk of the town lately. His most recent controversy is a genius electricity saving invention for those who can't afford fancy, expensive solar panels. The electric power companies are furious and want Elon's money saving invention banned before the American public can take full advantage of the savings. He goes on to say "The big power companies are scamming you. Yes, that's right. Believe it or not, they have been using a secret to cheat you every time you run your lights, dishwasher, blender, vacuum and anything else that draws power. This is why your power bill is so expensive every month and keeps rising with some residents paying as much as $500 a month in electric bills. Every American can slash their electricity bill by 90% using this revolutionary technology. You're welcome, America." This scam often features a picture of Musk holding one of the supposed "electricity-saving box" devices in his hand:  However, as readers can see at the top of this article, the photograph with Musk holding the device had been doctored. The original picture was available on the Getty Images website. available Continuing with the scam article, it went on to tell a sad story of a woman named "Dorothy Smith," purportedly a Tesla employee, who died of heat stroke in her home. According to the story, her death inspired Musk to create StopWatt: But for Elon Musk, this was more than just an invention to fight back against the greedy electric companies. When tragedy struck the Tesla factory, he knew he had to take action. Dorothy Smith was a 64 year old Tesla employee who died of a heat stroke after falling behind on her electric bills and her service was shut off in the middle of a record breaking heat wave. Her youngest daughter came to check up on her after many unanswered phone calls and tragically found Dorothy lifeless on the couch with her husband. ... Seeing just how devastating electricity prices are on the average American's wallet, and witnessing his own employee, Dorothy Smith pass away tragically, Elon Musk set out to find his old drawing plans for an electricity saver invention he had made as a young genius in South Africa. The original drawing was based on a concept by his idol, legendary inventor, electrical and mechanical engineer and visionary, Nikola Tesla. After a few hours of digging through old papers, he found it! Elon immediately called one of his brightest engineers at Tesla and trusted friend, Ed Sherwood. Combining their expertise, they set out to bring Elon's electricity saving dream to life. As we previously reported, none of this was true. Articles that claim Musk and Tesla created StopWatt are both fiction and scams. Further, there's no record of a Tesla employee named "Dorothy Smith" having died of heat stroke. "Elon Musk." Tesla.com, https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk. Liles, Jordan. "Was Pro Power Saver Endorsed by Elon Musk and Tesla?" Snopes, 23 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pro-power-saver-elon-musk/. Dec. 6, 2023: This report was updated to add the name of U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, whose image and likeness were being improperly used by scammers alongside Musk's in December 2023.
Claim:  The sister ship to the Olympic and Titanic was originally intended to be named the Gigantic.   . Origins:   The   Titanic was originally conceived by the White Star Company as one of a triumvirate of ships intended to vie with Cunard for the trans-Atlantic passenger service business.  White Star couldn't hope to offer ships as fast as Cunard's liners, so they planned to compete by building liners that were both bigger (and hence able to carry more paying passengers and cargo) and more luxurious than Cunard's.  Moreover, since an Atlantic crossing typically took five days in the new class of steamships operated by Cunard and White Star in the first decade of the 20th century, creating a trio of similar ships would allow White Star to offer trans-Atlantic service in both directions on a regular weekly schedule. The planned ships were so large that the shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff, had to allocate space normally used for building three hulls to handle just two of the new behemoths.  Harland and Wolff planned to construct the liners on a staggered schedule so that White Star would have one ready to go into service each spring between 1911 and 1913, and initially everything went according to plan. The keel of the first ship, the Olympic, was laid in December 1908, and the Titanic followed suit three months later.  The Olympic was launched in October 1910, and the Titanic in May 1911.  The  Olympic's maiden voyage took place in June 1911, and the Titanic's in April 1912.  And then ... After the Titanic disaster, the feverish public interest in these massive ocean liners abated, and the third ship of the planned triumvirate, the Britannic, was finally launched (after extensive modifications and with considerably less fanfare than her sisters) in April 1914.  Like her sister ship Titanic, she wasn't around long, though: World War I broke out before the Britannic ever went into passenger service; she was requisitioned by the Royal Navy and pressed into service as a hospital ship; and she struck a mine and sank off the coast of Greece in November  1916.   The magnitude of the Titanic disaster and World War I both overshadowed the short life of the Britannic, and she was gone before many people were even aware she had been built.  Over the years a rumor began to circulate that the Britannic's original name had been the Gigantic, but White Star had thought better of it and quietly changed their minds after the Titanic sank.  White Star maintained that this was not true; they had planned to name the ship Britannic all along and had never considered the name Gigantic. From a purely logical point of view, Gigantic seems the more likely choice.  The names Olympic, Titanic, and Gigantic all evoke a sense of size and strength that Britannic simply does not.  And White Star had considered naming a ship Gigantic on at least one other occasion, as demonstrated by this brief article that appeared 17 September 1892 New York Times: London, Sept. 16  The White Star Company has commissioned the great Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff to build an Atlantic steamer that will beat the record in size and speed. She has already been named the  Gigantic, and will be 700 feet long, 65 feet 7-1/2 inches beam and 4,500 horsepower. It is calculated that she will steam 22 knots an hour, with a maximum speed of 27 knots. She will have three screws, two fitted like Majestic's, and the third in the centre. She is to be ready for sea in March, 1894. We have more than logic and supposition to go by here, however.  Contemporary references publications such as The New York Times, Scientific American, and Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette as well as a promotional flyer from White Star itself all indicate that White Star did indeed originally have the name  Gigantic in mind, but one could hardly blame them for altering their plans.  After the sinking of the Titanic, passengers were suddenly less concerned with size and luxury than they were with getting to their destinations alive, and the dignified name Britannic conveyed a sense of safety and reliability in a way the attention-grabbing Gigantic could not. Last updated:  18 December 2005    Sources:   Eaton, John P. and Charles A. Haas.  Titanic: Destination Disaster.   Wellingborough, England: Patrick Stephens, 1987.  ISBN 0-85059-868-0  (pp. 54-56). Titanic: Destination Disaster    Heyer, Paul.  Titanic Legacy: Disaster As Media Event and Myth.   Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1995.  ISBN 0-275-95352-1  (pp. 20-22). Claim:  Someone who cheats at cards is properly styled a card shark, not a card sharp. Status:  Multiple  see below. Origins:  Long has the debate raged over whether a card cheat is properly termed a card sharp or a card shark. Sharks, after all, are known for dispassionately rending the flesh of their prey, which would seem in this linguistic battle to favor the card shark camp, since those who manipulate the pasteboards for the purpose of bilking others have no more conscience or concern for their victims than do their finned counterparts.   Yet card sharp also has in its favor that it seems to conjure up mental images of the poker cheats of the Old West, sharp-featured men with cards up their sleeves. Which, therefore, is it? Both terms still mean someone skilled in cheating at cards, although in recent years card shark has also come to acquire the less odious definition of someone skilled at the play of cards. (Were that not so, one would have to wonder at the naming of the 1978 TV game show Card Sharks, on which  contestants tried to guess whether the next card in a sequence was higher or lower than its predecessor.) As to whether card sharp or card shark entered the English language first, the answer is far from straightforward. A print sighting of card sharp dates to 1884 and one of card sharper to 1859, while the first print sighting of card shark takes us back only to 1942  evidence which  would seem to settle matters. However, both sharper and shark (in the sense of one who cheats) antedate all of the above, sharper to 1681 and shark to 1599, evidence which could be seen as giving the nod to shark. (By the way, the "shark" in question has nothing to do with carnivorous fish; it instead likely entered the English language via the German schurke, a word that in the 16th century had the meaning of a cheat or  swindler.)  If you thought the answer might be found via looking at the words sharp and shark absent the word card, that pursuit also leads down a blind alley, because some definitions of both those words contain elements of cheating or connivance. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sharp as "A worthless and impecunious person who gains a precarious living by sponging on others, by executing disreputable commissions, cheating at play, and petty swindling; a parasite; a sharper." While that use of the word is rarely encountered these days, remnants of it are still with us, such as when we accuse someone of engaging in "sharp practices" (meaning the cutting of corners to achieve desired ends  while the person so engaged may be staying within the strict letter of the law, his behavior could still be regarded as unethical and suspect). As for the word shark, in addition to encompassing the species of flesh-eating fish it identifies, it has over time come to serve as a label for certain dislikable characters: those who prey greedily upon others (such as successful businesspeople famous more for their love of profit than for adherence to ethics) and those who by virtue of superior skill outmaneuver less capable opponents (highly effective divorce attorneys, for instance). Common compound nouns have been formed from 'shark' that address both meanings, such as loan shark in the "prey greedily" category and pool shark in the "superior skill" category. Barbara "all sharks, finned or otherwise, are best avoided" Mikkelson Last updated:  13 June 2008    Sources:   The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services. Tax cuts passed under the Bush administration have been in place for close to ten years, but they will expire at the end of 2010 if Congress doesn't take action. Add in a weak economy, big government deficits, and an upcoming election, and you've got one of the most pressing policy issues of the year.President Barack Obama's administration wants to see the tax cuts made permanent for individuals who make less than $200,000 a year and couples who make less than $250,000 a year. Tax rates would go up for people who make more than that.Austan Goolsbee defended that position onThis Week with Christiane Amanpour. Goolsbee is one of Obama's top economic officials, and was recently selected to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, which counsels the president on economic policy.Obama has been quite clear, Goolsbee said, that borrowing $700 billion to extend tax cuts that average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires is the least effective bang for the buck we have.We were interested in that $100,000 number -- that extending the expiring tax cuts would average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires.The White House pointed us to data from the Ways and Means Committee, the committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with writing tax legislation. Democrats on the committee asked the Joint Committee on Taxation for an analysis of extending the expiring tax cuts. The Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, is a nonpartisan committee with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants who conduct research.The JCT crunched the numbers to generate several tables estimating tax revenues if the tax cuts expire, and how many taxpayers would be affected. The JCT found that, for those who have income of $1 million or more, extending the Bush tax cuts would mean $32.7 billion that the government would not collect in 2011. That amount would apply to 315,000 tax filers. Divide the foregone tax revenues by the number of filers, and you get $103,809, or just over $100,000, as Goolsbee said.We also checked with the Tax Policy Center, an independent, nonpartisan think tank that generates economic projections similar to those of the JCT. The Tax Policy Center found that theaverage tax increaseto millionaires and up would be $128,832. That's a bit higher than the JCT estimate, but for a complex economic analysis, it's fairly close. The center's numbers also supports Goolsbee's statement that extending the tax cuts would average more than $100,000 a year to millionaires and even billionaires.To get the point of view of someone who opposes letting the current tax rates expire, we turned to the conservative Heritage Foundation. J.D. Foster said he didn't argue with the numbers, but with Goolsbee's focus on millionaires. Many of those who make more than $200,000 or $250,000 are not millionaires, and those people will see a tax increase as well.If they only intend to raise taxes on millionaires, then they need to change their proposal, Foster said. I understand it's a convenient rhetorical ploy, but its factually incorrect.This is a fair point: Goolsbee talked about a $700 billion cost, which is a general estimate for what extending the tax cuts for 10 years would cost for all higher earners, not just millionaires.We went back to the analysis and found calculations for what the Bush tax cuts are worth for other high incomes. The JCT found that for those who make between $500,000 and $1 million, the lower rates were worth an average $17,467 per tax filer, and for those who make between $200,000 and $500,000, the lower rates were worth $7,152 per tax filer. The Tax Policy Center's numberswere similar.So Goolsbee is correct that the expiring tax cuts are worth, on average, more than $100,000 for millionaires and billionaires. But the proposal the president supports would let tax cuts expire for some people who make high salaries but aren't millionaires, which Goolsbee didn't mention. So we deduct a tick from the Truth-O-Meter and rate his statement Mostly True. On Feb. 6, 2024, the Republican presidential primary election results for Nevada started coming in, and X (formerly Twitter) was quickly flooded with posts claiming that former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had embarrassingly lost to a Nevada ballot option: "None of These Candidates." primary election Nikki Haley Voters in the Nevada GOP Primary were presented with three choices: Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and none of these candidates. And well pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM  Charlotte Clymer ?? (@cmclymer) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024  It's true that Voters were given the option to select the option "None of These Candidates," and 63.2% of voters did. Nikki Haley received only 30.5%, while former U.S. President Donald Trump opted to compete in the Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses instead of the presidential primary. Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses Although Trump's campaign encouraged voters to only focus on the Feb. 8 caucuses, many showed their support by voting for "None of These Candidates" in order to express displeasure with the remaining choices. The results for all candidates were as follows, as reported by AP. reported by AP.  (Image via AP) Jon Ralston, the editor of The Nevada Independent and longtime political commentator, tweeted on the evening of Feb. 6: One of the most embarrassing things I have seen in all my years of covering politics. Major presidential candidate loses to None of these Candidates. Might as well drop out. Seriously. https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0 https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0  Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024  "Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn't bother to play a game rigged for Trump," Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokesperson for Haley, responded to the results in a statement. "We're full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond." responded to the results Although they are focused on South Carolina  where Haley served as state governor 2011 to 2017  Trump continues to lead the state by a wide margin compared to Haley, according to the Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll published on Feb. 1. Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll  (Image via Monmouth University and the Washington Post) The option to vote for "None of These Candidates" has been in place in Nevada since 1975. The state only allows votes for specifically named candidates to count toward an official election result, so Haley will be considered the winner for technical purposes. Therefore, the loss is more symbolic, than anything, of her unpopularity with GOP voters compared to Trump. in place in Nevada since 1975 Continue following our coverage of the 2024 Presidential race here. here Haley Pushes Forward after Trumps Allies in Nevada Ensured Her Loss to None of These Candidates.AP News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-donald-trump-nikki-haley-none-candidates-d5ce36684eb7e41d7d2e74c6957e9196. Https://Twitter.Com/Cmclymer/Status/1755095824114094325.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1755095824114094325. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nevada Primary and Caucus Results.AP News, https://apnews.com/ap-nevada-election-2024-results. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nikki Haley Is Trounced by the none of These Candidates Option in Nevadas Republican Primary.AP News, 6 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-2024-presidential-primary-biden-trump-haley-d731bf8ab1e7d4a7379c07d3a37b581b. Nikki Haley Loses to none of These Candidates in the Nevada GOP Primary.NBC News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-loses-nevada-republican-primary-without-trump-rcna137367. NJ 07764571-3400, 400 Cedar Avenue West Long Branch. Haley Trails in Home State.Monmouth University Polling Institute, 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_sc_020124/. None of These Candidates Received the Most Votes Tuesday in Nevadas GOP Primary.USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/07/none-of-these-candidates-wins-an-election/72503691007/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses | USAGov. https://www.usa.gov/primaries-caucuses. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Silver, Nate. In Nevada, No One Is Someone to Watch.FiveThirtyEight, 1282940575, https://archive.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/in-nevada-no-one-is-someone-to-watch/. Slattery, Gram, et al. Haley Vows to Stay in Race Following embarrassing Nevada Defeat.Reuters, 7 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haley-reels-stinging-loss-nevada-while-trump-seeks-clean-up-delegates-2024-02-07/. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has frequently referred to his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Some social media users questioned whether this was the same "Scranton" from the U.S. sitcom "The Office" (and whether Scranton was indeed a real American city). Meanwhile, Biden's political rival, U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Biden of exaggerating his connections to the small Pennsylvania city.  This topic came up once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while talking about middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments: mentioned Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don't live off of the stock market. This isn't about me. There's a reason why he's bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it. He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family, and your family's hurting badly. If you're making less than, if you're a middle class family, you're getting hurt badly right now. You're sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well, we can't get new tires, theyre bald, because we have to wait another month. Or, so are we going to be able to pay the mortgage? Who's going to tell her, she can't go back to community college? They're the decisions you're making in the middle class families like I grew up in Scranton and Claymont. They're in trouble. We should be talking about your families but that's the last thing he wants to talk about. Later in the debate, Trump disputed Biden's connections to Scranton: And he doesn't come from Scranton. That's like, what -- he lived there for a short period of time before he even knew -- And he left. And the people of Pennsylvania will tell you that. In the past, Trump has pushed an exaggerated version of this claim, saying that Biden "wasn't born here" in Scranton. wasn't born here The president is wrong. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here's a November 1942 newspaper clipping of Biden's birth announcement from The Tribune, a local Scranton newspaper: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/61652359/ For fans of "The Office," this is the same Scranton that serves as the home of the fictional paper company Dunder Mifflin.  Scranton Biden lived in Scranton until he was 10 years old. His father struggled to find work and eventually landed a job cleaning boilers in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden's father made the two-hour commute for a time, but in 1953 he moved the family to Claymont to be closer to work. The New York Times reported: reported Though Scranton was sharing in the postwar economic boom, Joe Sr. had trouble finding steady work, and nothing that measured up to his previous success. For a time, he commuted to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company. In 1953, he moved the family there. [...] After a few years in a drab apartment in Claymont, Del., the Bidens moved to a nondescript split-level home on Wilson Road in Wilmington, where they stayed until the children were grown. While the Bidens moved out of Scranton when he was 10 years old, the family maintained some connections to his hometown. In 1987, Jean Finnegan Biden, the former vice president's mother, told the Scrantonian Tribune, "Scranton's our hometown... we have fond memories of it." In 2008, Delaware's The News Journal published an article about Biden's hometown friends and his authentic connection to the city: Scrantonian Tribune  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com In an interview with GQ, Biden talked about his childhood in Scranton and noted that his family spent most holidays and summers visiting friends in Scranton until he was about 16 years old. Biden also said that a few of his friends from Scranton were in his wedding: GQ I go back [to Scranton] lot. For the last thirty-five years, any time Scranton needs something I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't. You know, it's still home. I moved outta there when I was 11 years old, but probably till I was 16, we spent every holiday up there. And almost every summer. And when I got married, to Neilia, my deceased wife, there were six, seven guys in the wedding and three of them were from Scranton. In short: 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in November 1942. This is the same Scranton that is featured in the show "The Office." Biden lived in Scranton for about 10 years until his father moved the family a few hours away to Clayton after getting a job in Delaware.  The Associated Press.  "The Office sheds light on Scranton, Pa."
  3 March 2006. Tavernise, Sabrina.  "Biden Says He Gets Places Like Scranton. Some in Town Arent So Sure."
  The New York Times.  23 Otober 2020. Calefati, Jessica.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Frequent Claim That Joe Biden Abandoned Scranton.'"
  PolitiFact.  29 August 2020. Depaulo, Lisa.  "$#!% Joe Biden Says."
  GQ.  19 November 2010. Solender, Andrew.  "He Wasnt Born Here: Trump Birthers Biden Near Scranton Ahead Of DNC Acceptance Speech."
  Forbes.  20 August 2020. Broder, John.  "Fathers Tough Life an Inspiration for Biden."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2008. USA Today.  "Debate Transcript: Trump, Biden Final Presidential Debate Moderated by Kristen Welker."
  23 October 2020. Classic Disney cartoons have proved to be a consistent source of conspiracy theories, rumors, and urban legends. For instance, we've previously investigated claims that Winnie the Pooh was actually a girl (false), that the Seven Dwarfs were modeled on cocaine addiction (False) and that a topless woman could briefly be spotted in VHS copies of "The Rescuers" (True). urban legends false False True In January 2019, we encountered yet another Disney rumor: This time, the internet asked, is the Goofy cartoon character actually a cow rather than an (anthropomorphic) dog? Although this dog vs. cow debate wasn't entirely new in 2019, that time around it was supposedly supported by an "investigative article" published in 2012 by the website Reel Rundown. While that article did contain some factual information regarding the history of the Goofy character, which is likely the reason why some people have accepted it as a truthful account of Goofy's supposed sordid past, it is peppered with exaggerations, speculation, outright fabrications, and was clearly written with humorous intentions. Reel Rundown Reel Rundown presented their argument as if they were uncovering a vast Disney conspiracy theory aimed at covering up Goofy's unsavory bovine heritage. In the introductory section, entitled "Goofy Is Not a Dog -- The Cover Up," the author argued that Goofy was actually a foreign-born cow and that Disney was forced to conceal this fact due to the political climate in the 1930s: Goofy has always been thought of as a "dog with human features" according to Disney's Mouselinks. However what the Disney establishment isn't telling you is the goofy is really a cow. To be specific an Aberdeen-Angus Cattle. A fact that Disney would love to cover-up considering that Goofy's national origin is anything but American. In 1939 with American nationalism at an historic high, Goofy's true heritage could have created a huge scandal for Disney. A Scandal that would have finished Goofies [sic] career just as it was starting to take-off." The next section, "Goofy's Heritage Revealed," was even more outlandish. Reel Rundown imagined Goofy as a living, breathing, physical animal who was born "Dipalwa Dawala" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and was "discovered by Disney talent scouts during a livestock sale." During the "Dark Years" section of the article, the website upped the absurdity and claimed that Goofy's son died from Mad Cow disease. For those who took the time to read the article, it should have been obvious that it was a work of humorous fiction. However, it seems that some readers stopped at the headline and were left convinced that Goofy was actually a cow, not a dog:   Although this article was clearly written in jest, some of its curious claims have been spread in support of the "Goofy is a cow" argument. We'll dispel some of this misinformation to stop malicious propagation of rumors about this beloved Disney dog. Disney dog Was Goofy "born" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and named "Dipalwa Dawala?" First off, Goofy wasn't "born" anywhere: He was created by Disney animators Art Babbitt and Frank Webb in the 1930s. Goofy was introduced as a side character named "Dippy Dawg" in the cartoon short Mickey's Revue (1932) but underwent some revisions over the next few years. While Goofy has gone by a number of names during his Disney career (including Super Goof, Dippy Dawg, George G. Geef, Goofus D. Dawg, and Goofy Goof), we were unable to find any credible source listing the character as "Dipalwa Dawala." Art Babbitt introduced In fact, the only search results we could find for this term all point back to this Reel Rundown article. In other words, Goofy has never been named "Dipalw Dawala." Does Goofy's old love interest, Clarabelle the Cow, prove that Goofy is also a cow? Reel Rundown ended their humorous work of fiction with an "evidence" section claiming that Disney's history of creating same species couples (Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, etc.) pointed to Goofy's being a cow since he once had a love interest named Clarabele Cow: Goofy's love interest in the Mickey Mouse clubhouse is Clarabelle the Cow. The on-screen chemistry is obvious. Disney often couples characters with the opposite sex of the same species. Mickey and Mini, Donald and Daisey [sic] both follow this pattern. So why would the writers at Disney have Goofy and Clarabelle coupled up? While it's true that Goofy and Clarabelle Cow were once an item, this is not proof that they were the same species of animal. Clarabelle was the sometimes girlfriend of Horace Horsecollar, who was a horse and not a cow, and the Disney universe includes multiple examples of inter-species couples: Ben Ali Gator, for instance, woos Hyacinth Hippo in Fantasia; Jessica Rabbit (a cartoon human) has a rabbit husband in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog have an ongoing (if one-sided) relationship in the Muppet canon. Outside the Disney universe, Bimbo, a cartoon dog, was the occasional love interest of Betty Boop (a human female), and of course, Tillie Tiger once planted a kiss on Elmer Elephant:   The Reel Rundown article was clearly a jape. However, it made us curious about Goofy's actual origins and whether the character was originally intended to represent a dog. In Art Babbitt's character analysis of Goofy from 1934 (available via the website of animator Michael Sporn), Goofy is described as a "composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured coloured boy and a hick." In his description of how Goofy should be drawn, Babbit mentioned two real-world creatures, neither of which was a cow: website It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof's head and Pluto's. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human. The Goof's head can be thought of in terms of a caricature of a person with a pointed domelarge, dreamy eyes, buck teeth and weak chin, a large mouth, a thick lower lip, a fat tongue and a bulbous nose that grows larger on its way out and turns up. His eyes should remain partly closed to help give him a stupid, sloppy appearance, as though he were constantly straining to remain awake, but of course they can open wide for expressions or accents. He blinks quite a bit. His ears for the most part are just trailing appendages and are not used in the same way as Pluto's ears except for rare expressions. His brow is heavy and breaks the circle that outlines his skull. A description of the character from Disney.go.com also compares Goofy to Pluto but notes that Goofy was created as more of a human character: "Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice." Disney.go.com When we reached out to Disney for comment, a spokesperson told us that both The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agreed that Goofy was indeed an anthropomorphic dog. Erin Glover, Director of Publicity and Communications at Disney Animation, told us: The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agree that this question was best answered by Disney Legend Dave Smith: "Goofy was originally created as a human character with dog-like characteristics, thus why he walks upright, wears clothes, talks and has animal features that resemble a dog." The Disney Domain.  "The History of Goofy."   13 April 2016. Disney.go.com.  "Characters: Goofy."   Archived 1 August 2003. Fischer, Tony.  "Is Goofy a Dog?"   Reel Rundown.  9 January 2019. In 2021, internet users enthusiastically shared memes containing what appeared to be a Nazi-era Coca-Cola advertisement bearing the slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Getrank  Coke Ist Es" ("One People, One Realm, One Drink  Coke Is It.") enthusiastically shared   In some cases, the "Nazi ad" was juxtaposed with a photograph of a Coke bottle that expressed support for LGBTQ rights, which featured an LGBTQ rainbow motif, and the slogan "Love is Love," along with a photograph of former U.S. President Donald Trump and a subtitle that read "I was a businessman...doing business": juxtaposed I was a businessman The message conveyed by the latter version of the meme appeared to be that the 21st century rhetoric of inclusion and diversity, popular among many large corporations like Coca-Cola, especially during LGBTQ Pride Month, should be viewed skeptically as an effort to appeal to customers, rather than a sincere expression of those principles, and that large corporations have always embraced whichever movements they view as most likely to increase their profits. This point was supposedly illustrated by the Nazi-era Coke ad. As one Twitter user wrote, "Capitalism has no heart or soul. Only profits." wrote The validity of that broader argument is beyond the scope of this fact check. However, we can say for certain that the "Nazi Coke ad" contained in the memes was not an authentic Nazi-era advertisement. As such, we are issuing a rating of  The words at the top of the ad are a pastiche of the real Nazi slogan "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fhrer" ("One People, One Realm, One Leader.") However, "Coke ist es" is a transliteration of the Coca-Cola slogan "Coke is it" and the first piece of evidence as to the inauthenticity of the advert.  slogan "Coke is it" has been an iconic commercial slogan over the past several decades, but it was not launched by Coca-Cola until 1982. Therefore, its presence in the "Nazi Coke ad" in question actually establishes that the design could not have originated in that era or specifically in the context of the 1936 Olympics.  1982 Furthermore, the "Coca-Cola" brand name is accompanied by a registered trademark  symbol. Although the company first trademarked that name in 1893, the  symbol did not appear with the distinctive brand design until the 1950s, according to Allen Petretti, an expert in Coca-Cola collectibles and antiques. 1893 until the 1950s Together, these two anachronisms constitute satisfactory proof that the design in question could not have originated during the 1930s.  Rather than dating to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the ad actually originated in an art installation curated in 2004 by the English comedian and activist Mark Thomas and the Welsh artist Tracey Moberly (formerly Tracey Sanders-Wood).  Early in 2004, Thomas and Moberly solicited design entries online with the following brief: solicited Firstly, to try and recreate the adverts that Coke had in the Nazi era. There are a number of written descriptions of Coke's work and there are places on the web that show the type of ads they used. So using the resources we gather and our imaginations we can try and create the ads Coke used. Secondly, to use photomontage to try and create Coke's images in Nazi Germany. Basically instead of recreating ads we are looking at placing those ads in situ. Thirdly, to do whatever you like around the theme of Coke and the issues that surround the Company. From oils to papier mache all is welcome. As a result, more than 400 fake ads were included in the "Coca-Cola's Nazi Adverts" exhibit, which was shown in London, Moscow, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Columbia between 2004 and 2006. An early news release for the exhibit made it clear the pieces were parodies and imitations, rather than authentic adverts from that era: more than 400 shown news release This exhibition is done without the consent of Coca Cola. The works are not the original adverts used by Coke in Nazi Germany, well one or two might be Coke ads but they have been bastardised and willfully changed. When this fact check was first published, Snopes was not able to find definitive evidence that the "Coke ist es" advert specifically originated in Thomas and Moberly's exhibit. However, in June 2021, photographer Scott van Looy contacted us to confirm that he had taken a photograph of the fake ad, shown below, as displayed on the walls of The Foundry, a now-defunct London bar and venue once run by Moberly, as part of the initial exhibit. The picture was taken on June 10, 2004, van Looy told Snopes. once run by Moberly  The fake Nazi Coke advert, as displayed at the Foundry, London, on June 10, 2004. Courtesy of Scott van Looy. https://scottjoycephotography.net/  The rainbow-flag, pro-LGBTQ Coke bottle design shown in many of the same memes in 2021, on the other hand, was authentic. It originated in a "Love is Love" marketing campaign run by Coca-Cola in Hungary, in 2019.  marketing campaign [Updated] 23 June, 2021: Added confirmation that the fake ad originated in Thomas and Moberly's 2004 exhibition. I just saw a post on Facebook: THE KOCH BROTHERS BUY NPR "After making large donations to National Public Radio (NPR), the radio network charged with delivering an alternative viewpoint to Americans, NPR has slashed its environmental and climate change coverage. Is anyone surprised?  On 28 November 2014, the Facebook group Vocal Progressives posted the meme displayed above to its page without corroborating information or news links, and alarmed many readers who feared corporate interests had compromised the integrity of National Public Radio (NPR). Referenced in the image are Charles Koch and his brother David, the politically active owners of the corporation Koch Industries. David Koch is a board member of several organizations, among them the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (which opposes the imposition of taxes levied to address climate change issues). While David Koch (and to a lesser extent Charles) remains openly engaged on specific political issues, the claim regarding NPR and the Kochs is of dubious origin. In part, it appears to trace back to an article published on 24 October 2014 on Inside Climate News titled "NPR Reduces Its Environment Team to One Reporter": article The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest to cover other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR's science desk."We'll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way," she said. "One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world." Gudenkauf also said she doesn't "feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters" because so many other staffers cover the subject, along with their other beats. The article in question addressed NPR's decision to reduce its allocation of coverage to climate change as a separate beat (in favor of folding that topic into standard news coverage); nowhere in the article were David Koch or Charles Koch mentioned by name, despite the presence of several other articles on the site covering the Koch brothers' interests in the Keystone XL pipeline environmental issue. As such, it's reasonable to assume that had the Koch brothers been germane at all to Inside Climate News's NPR story published in October 2014, the publication would have made that connection at the time. Although Inside Climate News's piece was critical of NPR's decision to combine climate coverage with other news, the move was not framed as one made under any political or funding pressure whatsoever. Three days after the original Inside Climate News article was published, an unrelated article involving the Koch brothers and NPR appeared in a different publication. Titled "Did You Hear the Koch Brothers Just Gave a Million Bucks to NPR to Cover Healthcare?", that piece was deliberately misleading in its frame: It opened by explaining the million dollar Koch donation hadn't happened, but another organization had donated a large sum to NPR. The near-concurrent appearance of the two articles may have loaned credence to the idea that NPR slashed its climate change coverage to appease the Kochs in October of 2014. article Another article, published in May 2013, may have fueled the belief NPR's reduction of dedicated environmental coverage stemmed from Koch donations. The New Yorker ran a piece at the time about PBS affiliate WNET's handling of content involving the Kochs. In that item, WNET's president Neal Shapiro disclosed conversations with David Koch about a 2013 film release: a piece That Friday, Shapiro initially said, he called Koch at his office and told him that the Gibney film "was going to be controversial," noting, "You're going to be a big part of this thing." Shapiro offered to show him the trailer, and added that he hoped to arrange "some sort of on-air roundtable discussion of it, to provide other points of view." It could air immediately after the documentary. (Shapiro told me, "We did this after Ken Burns's film on baseball, too. We like to have a local angle.") Shapiro asked Koch, "Do you want to be involved?" He also offered Koch the opportunity to provide a written response, which the station could air after the show.Shapiro acknowledges that his call to Koch was unusual. Although many prominent New Yorkers are portrayed in "Park Avenue," he said that he "only just called David Koch. He's on our board. He's the biggest main character. No one else, just David Koch. Because he's a trustee. It's a courtesy." Shapiro, who joined WNET six years ago, from NBC News, added, "I can't remember doing anything like this  I can't remember another documentary centered around New York and key people in the city, and such controversial topics." However, that article addressed content pertaining to the Koch brothers' overall influence and was not specific to climate change, and the controversial claims made in the piece concerned PBS, not NPR. Additionally, in NPR's ethics manual, guidelines for the interaction of funding sources and NPR journalists are detailed: ethics manual Our journalism is made possible by a diverse coalition of funding sources, including donations from members of the public, grants from foundations and government agencies, and paid sponsorships and underwriting. While we value all who support our work, those who fund us do so in the knowledge that our journalism serves only the public. We believe our strength as a business is premised solely on high-quality, independent journalism in the public interest. All NPR employees  journalists as well as sponsorship, communications and development staff  are committed first and foremost to that service. At NPR, the journalists  including senior news managers  have full and final authority over all journalistic decisions. We work with all other divisions of the company towards the goal of supporting and protecting our journalism. This means we communicate with our sponsorship and development departments to identify areas where we hope to expand our reporting. It also means we may take part in promotional activities or events such as coordinated fund drives, listener support spots and public radio audience-building initiatives. But we observe a clear boundary line: NPR journalists interact with funders only to further our editorial goals, not to serve the agendas of those who support us. NPR also addressed the specific issue of whether the Kochs were major donors (or donated at all) during controversy over coverage of the People's Climate March in September 2014. At that time NPR confirmed that while critics believed David and Charles Koch were NPR donors, there was no record of the Koch brothers of having made any donation (large or small) to NPR, and the broadcasters clarified their position on climate change and their objectives when covering environmental issues: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/lisbon-portugal-february-17-2014-photo-177163448In a related note, many emailers seemed to think that the brothers David and Charles Koch are donors to NPR. If so, no one at NPR knows about it. The development office did several days of searching and could find no record of their giving. Not that the Kochs couldn't give if they wanted to. The critics might be confusing NPR with WGBH, the public TV and radio station in Boston; David Koch is a long-time supporter and board member there and formerly of other public radio stations like WNET. In its coverage of climate change, NPR long ago crossed the bridge to conclude that, based on the science, climate change is real and we humans are contributing to it. Some of the email writers seem to want NPR to be an advocate on the issue, but beyond drawing attention to it, NPR isn't one and shouldn't be. It reports dissenting views when newsworthy, though in its framing of stories overall and in its emphasis on the facts, I find the coverage avoids the trap of "false equivalence." As of 2018, David Koch's name no longer appears on the WGBH's Board of Trustees' page. However, Koch still supports the PBS science series "NOVA"  which PBS says affects its direction not at all. page still supports On October 9th, 2016, WikiLeaks disclosed thousands of e-mails from the personal account of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, also a former counselor to President Barack Obama. Among those files were two e-mails signed by former NASA astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell from the e-mail address terribillionairs@aol.com. The first message, dated 18 January 2015, read: message Subject: email for John Podesta (c/o Eryn) from Edgar Mitchel re meeting ASAP Dear John, As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vaticans awareness of ETI [extraterrestrial intelligence]. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russias extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obamas Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryns assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.  Best regards,Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon The second message, dated 18 August 2015, included a brief introduction and a series of links to articles that primarily discussed the militarization of space. It bore the same signature as the first e-mail: message Subject: email for John Podesta c/o Eryn re Space Treaty (attached) Dear John,  Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk. Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. The following information in italics was shared with me by my colleague Carol Rosin, who worked closely for several years with Wernher von Braun before his death. Carol and I have worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, attached for your convenience. Best regards,Edgar Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon Before diving into the content of these two e-mails, we should identify the players involved. Dr. Edgar Mitchell (who passed away in 2016) was a NASA astronaut who traveled to (and walked on) the moon as part of the Apollo 14 mission in 1971. A Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, he once completed a record-breaking nine-hour, 24-minute EVA on the surface of the moon. In addition to his distinguished scientific career with NASA, he was a strong believer in metaphysical phenomena. He claimed, for example, that a Toronto-based healer named Adam Dreamhealer had cured him of kidney cancer remotely while the two men were separated by thousands of miles. He also was a strong believer in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life and claimed Earth had frequently been visited by aliens. Among the many times he made these assertions was in a 2009 interview with the Guardian: recipient record-breaking Adam Dreamhealer interview "We are being visited," [Mitchell] said. "It is now time to put away this embargo of truth about the alien presence. I call upon our government to open up ... and become a part of this planetary community that is now trying to take our proper role as a spacefaring civilisation." Though Mitchell signed the messages, the e-mail address from which they originated belonged to Terri Mansfield (Mitchells Catholic colleague), who runs a nonprofit that focuses on metaphysical concepts including consciousness, god, extraterrestrial intelligence, and the development of technology that could harness zero point energy (a pseudoscientific concept discussed below). belonged nonprofit Carol Rosin, whom Mitchell mentions as having helped to collect the links listed in the second e-mail, states on her web site that she is the founder of the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space. On the same site, she describes her role as advis[ing] decision makers and others about applications of technology and information services for human needs, environment, new energy, and peace and security, health and prosperity for all on earth and in space. web site Mansfield and Rosin's connection to Mitchell does not necessarily imply influence or authorship of these emails, as the content is consistent with causes he championed. In fact, Rebecca Hardcastle Wright, a former employee of Mitchell's, wrote a post attesting to their authenticity, confirming that a Skype meeting with Podesta had been requested by Mitchell but never ended up taking place. former employee post  As far as the content of the e-mails, there are two (very) loosely connected threads at play. The more straightforward thread (and what ultimately seems to be the primary premise for a Skype meeting, based on the subject lines) is the discussion of adding the United States as a signatory to an amended version of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, an international agreement dating back to the 1960s that prevents governments, essentially, from putting nukes or weapons of mass destruction in orbit or from putting military bases on the moon or on other objects in space. agreement Mitchell and Rosin were arguing for the United States to sign onto an even more restrictive treaty originally proposed  by China and Russia in 2008, which would ban weapons in space outright. The list of links provided by Rosin (primarily news articles and blog posts) all related to international space collaboration and various warnings about countries currently involved in, or planning to be involved in, putting weapons in space. treaty Its the material in the first e-mail that is a bit more convoluted. That missive opens with an urgent request to discuss zero point energy and disclosure. Disclosure refers to the release of any and all information the U.S. government might have on UFOs. This is, in fact, a topic for which John Podesta openly advocated well before any WikiLeaks referenced the subject, as the Washington Post reported in April of 2016: reported "In 2002," [Leslie] Kean and co-author [of UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record] Ralph Blumenthal wrote, "Podesta began publicly supporting what became a landmark Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Freedom of Information, an independent advocacy group. NASA had been stonewalling and refusing to release its records concerning a significant 1965 UFO incident in Kecksburg, PA." Documents were released, but they "did not include one iota of information relating to the Kecksburg case, despite an earnest and thorough effort by NASA staff." It's apparently those documents to which Podesta was referring when, after a brief stint working in the Obama White House, he tweeted that failing to secure the release of UFO files was his "biggest failure of 2014." Zero point energy is a concept in quantum physics that refers to the amount of energy a given quantum system has at its lowest quantum state or ground state. The fact that systems at this zero point actually still possess some energy has lead to myriad science fiction or pseudoscientific claims of being able to tap into that energy to achieve things currently known to be physically impossible. concept Mitchell ran a company, listed in his email signature, called Quantrek, which sought, among other things, to harness this zero point energy, according to Terri Mansfield (the woman from whom the e-mails to Podesta originated): [Mitchell] and his science team researched the application of the quantum hologram as well as zero point energy, the most powerful, cleanest, cheapest, safest, most ubiquitous form of energy for the planet. ZPE will power cars, trains, planes, sea-going vessels, space ships, as well as our homes and buildings. The connection between the zero point energy topic and the space treaty, while not completely articulated in the e-mails, appears to be based on Mansfields (and presumably Mitchells) belief that as a species humans need to show our obedience to God and embrace extraterrestrial beings by abandoning free will and embracing peace, at which point the aliens will allow us to understand and implement zero point energy. Mansfield explains that connection on her web site: connection The ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) with whom Suzanne and Terri work are peaceful, nonviolent and obedient to God. They are NOT from our universe but from a CONTIGUOUS universe. They are the highest form of intelligence working directly with God. Their purpose is to assist us humans who are eager to bring powerful, safe, clean, cheap, sustainable, ubiquitous, infinite ZERO POINT ENERGY application as THE energy source to our viable Earth. This ZPE energy is centered on the Tau neutrino. When ETI want to make themselves known, they do so with specific colors, sound, touch, scent, taste and manipulation of matter. Examples abound. They frequently turn on lights in our homes when they want our attention. ETI want only what is best for humanity to evolve spiritually, demand obedience given by free will choice, respond with compassion and / or justice, when required. The implication appears to be that extraterrestrials are willing to help us with our zero point energy problems so long as we can demonstrate our peaceful nature. This is presumably what Mitchell is referring to in the second e-mail when he wrote: Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. Though we cannot say for certain, it appears likely that the reference to God and the Vatican stems from Mansfield's belief system revolving around obedience to God and her Catholicism. Ultimately, though, what has emerged from these messages is a picture of a decorated astronaut with a history of eccentric views attempting, unsuccessfully, to set up a meeting with a high ranking and potentially sympathetic government official with either the help of (or influence from) both a metaphysicist and an advocate for a demilitarized space. In Mitchells and Mansfield's view, there is a straight line connection between signing a stronger space treaty and receiving information from aliens about how to create a form of energy that will save our civilization. What does not emerge, however, is any evidence supporting the quasi-scientific claims made by Mitchell or Mansfield, or that the United States Government is privy to any information regarding those claims.