Sotomayor's 2001 speech resurfaces following Trump's remarks about a judge's Mexican heritage.
In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law.
ATV adreleased Aug. 28, 2014 by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a group funded by labor unions and Democratic ideological groups, starts with three children looking into the camera and each asking: Why? Then an adult narrator says: Why did Scott Walker cut school funding more per student than any governor in America? Where did the money go? To Scott Walker's friends. Walker gave his corporate friends half a billion dollars in tax breaks and giveaways. We've alreadyrated Falsean earlier Greater Wisconsin Committee claim, that Walker gave $570 million in job-development incentives to his cronies or corporate friends. Much of that money went to firms whose employees have given to Democrats in the past, many of the donations were small and Walkers jobs agency has a limited role in dealing with firms associated with a big chunk of the $570 million. But what about the claim of Walker cutting school funding, on a per-student basis, more than any other governor? What we know There's no dispute that shortly after taking office in January 2011, Walker made a dramatic reduction in school funding. In fact, in February 2012 werated Truea broader claim -- that Walker had enacted the biggest cuts to education in our state's history. The $1.2 billion in reductions included $792 million in direct state aid to kindergarten-through-12th grade schools, which is the focus of the new Greater Wisconsin Committee ad. But that fact-check didn't calculate the K-12 school cuts on a per-student basis in comparison to other states. And Walker later restored some of the state aid to schools. The committees evidence Before we dig in, a few words about wording. The Greater Wisconsin Committees claim refers tofundingof public schools. But, as well see, the evidence the committee cites isoverall spendingby the schools -- in other words, what was spent in total from state, federal and local money. So, in addition to checking the overall spending figures the committee cited to us in support of its claim, well examinestate revenuefigures -- the amount of money given to public schools strictly from the state. What the Greater Wisconsin Committee cited isa tablefrom a solid source, thelatest annual reportfrom the U.S. Census Bureau comparing all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) on public school financing. Issued in May 2014, the report covers the Wisconsin state fiscal year of 2011-12, which is the first full fiscal year during Walkers term in office. (The states fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30; in other words, roughly the same as the traditional school year.) On a percentage basis, Wisconsins reduction in overall per-pupil spending -- of state, federal and local money -- was at the top of the chart when compared with the previous year. In terms of cuts, here are the top five:  State/District Per-pupil SPENDING in 2011-12 from ALL sources Change from 2010-11 Wisconsin $11,042 -6.2 percent Florida $8,372 -5.8 percent District of Columbia $17,468 -5.4 percent Texas $8,261 -4.7 percent South Dakota $8,446 -4.1 percent  In contrast, the census report shows that in the four years before Walker took office, Wisconsins per-student spending rose -- by 3.6 percent in 2010-11, 2.6 percent in 2009-10, 3.7 percent in 2008-09 and 4 percent in 2007-08. In terms of blaming Walker for the cuts, the governor, along with the Republican-controlled Legislature, had direct control over state money, which amounted to 48 percent of the spending by Wisconsin schools in 2011-12. Through the Act 10 collective bargaining reform law, Walker and the Legislature required employees to pay more toward their pension and enabledschool districts to charge employees more for health insurance as a way to offset some of the state aid cuts. But as we noted in rating the biggest cuts in state history claim, the Greater Wisconsin Committees statement was not about net impact, just the state funding side of the equation. Walker and the Legislature also had significant influence over local funding, which amounted to 44 percent of the schools spending, because they essentially froze the amount of property tax revenue that local school districts could raise. Walker had no real control over federal funding, which amounted to 8 percent of total spending by Wisconsin schools. Other measures Now, using the same census report, lets look at the revenue figures, focusing on how much state money went to Wisconsin schools. Once again, Wisconsin was at the top in terms of cuts. State Per-pupil REVENUE in 2011-12 from STATE GOVERNMENT Change from 2010-11 Wisconsin $5,544 -8.33 percent Idaho $4,630 -6.79 percent Arizona $3,018 -6.46 percent Wyoming $9,466 -5.05 percent Florida $3,273 -4.84 percent  So, the state revenue measure also supports the Greater Wisconsin Committee claim. But there some newer figures available. AMay 2014 reportfrom the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., examined state funding of schools in 2013-14. Those figures show Wisconsin was among 15 states that reduced state per-student spending from the previous year. Wisconsin's 0.6 percent reduction (adjusted for inflation) wasnt the largest cut, but rather the third-smallest. (Alaskas 3.2 percent cut was the largest.) Wisconsin state funding was $5,747 per student in 2013-14, versus $5,783 the previous year. As for comparing states on school funding for the entirety of Walkers term, those figures simply arent available yet. Our rating The Greater Wisconsin Committee said: Scott Walker cut school funding more per student than any governor in America. Based on the latest census figures, for 2011-12, the Wisconsin cuts were the largest based on two measures -- state revenue provided to local schools and overall spending by schools of state, federal and local money. But more recent figures indicate that Wisconsins school spending cuts are no longer the largest, at least for a more recent period. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hasrisen by 32 percentsince President Donald Trump took office. But are Americans overall benefiting? U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna. D-Calif., suggested that they are not ina Facebook postspotted by a PolitiFact reader. Khannas post featured the headline, Most Americans dont own stocks. He repeated that point in his message, which accompanied a bar graph: FACT: Most Americans dont own any stocks. Instead of celebrating whenever the Dow Jones goes up, we need to focus on bringing investment and good jobs to the areas of this country that havent been part of the economic recovery. The accompanying graph details the distribution of stock ownership by wealth percentile, specifically 84 percent for the top 10 percent, 9.3 percent for the next 10 percent and 6.7 percent for the bottom 80 percent. The data in the graph stems from a peer-reviewed academic paper. However, when we took a closer look, we found the data in the graph doesnt directly support the claim that most Americans dont own stocks. In fact, the actual data on that question shows that a small majority of Americans do have a stake in the stock market. The data in the graph comes from apaperpublished in November 2017 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolff. One of the papersfindingswas that despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016. This line by Wolff presents a key contrast that Khannas post glosses over: While about half of households own stocks in one way or another, the richest Americans hold the lions share of the value. Khanna uses a bar graph that highlights the imbalance in thevalueof stock holdings, but his headline claim is about thereachof stock ownership throughout the population. Those are two different things. When we contacted Wolff, he agreed that Khannas headline was wrong. So what does the data show on the reach of stock ownership? Its a bit wider than Khanna suggests. Even if you dont own or trade individual stocks, theres a decent chance you have a 401(k) account or an Individual Retirement Account or belong to a pension fund that is invested in stocks. Many individuals have an indirect interest in the stock market by means of their claims on pension funds that own stocks and use these stock positions to fund pension payments, said Hendrik Bessembinder, a professor at Arizona State Universitys W.P. Carey School of Business. A once-every-three-yearsstudyby the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund. And in 2017,Gallupfound that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund. Those findings show a majority owning stocks  a modest majority, but still a majority. In an email interview, Khanna told PolitiFact that he still feels the essence of the post is accurate but added that a better headline would have been, Most Americans Dont Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market. Khanna has a point that a households affluence does help determine how vested they are in the stock market. The Federal Reserve Board study found that about one-third of families in the lower half of the income scale had stock holdings. In the next 40 percent of the income scale, about 70 percent of households held stocks, while households in the top 10 percent of the income scale had stock ownership rates above 90 percent. Here's a chart from the Fed's report, showing how stock ownership rates vary depending on income level. Gallup, meanwhile, found that certain subgroups were notably less likely to own stocks, including those without a college education, younger Americans, unmarried Americans, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Khanna wrote that most Americans dont own stocks. To be precise, a narrow majority of Americans does own stocks, according to credible recent studies. But Khanna has a point that Americans of modest incomes are significantly less invested in the stock market than wealthier Americans are. Other large groups, including minorities and those without a college education, also lag in stock ownership, meaning that the stock rally is largely passing them by. We rate the statement Half True. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice took to Facebook in October to tout gains in his states tourism industry. When I took office, I made tourism a top priority because I knew it had all the potential in the world, Justicewrote in his post. Today I am proud to announce that West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58%! Way to go West Virginia Tourism! The post linked to apress releasethat provided additional detail and cited astudyconducted by  Dean Runyan Associates, an economic consulting firm that has examined the states tourism industry annually since 2000. A year ago, we fact-checked how well Justice described the previous years statistics and rated itMostly True, because Justice glossed over some of the reports negative findings. How about this year? Lets take a look, point by point. (Justices office did not respond to inquiries for this article.) This is accurate. The report found that overall spending on tourism in West Virginia grew from $4.14 billion in 2016 to $4.28 billion in 2017 to $4.55 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 6.5%, easily exceeding the rate of inflation. Spending also grew for the second straight year if you set aside gambling revenue. It rose from $3.48 billion in 2016 to to $3.63 billion in 2017 to $3.91 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 7.5%. This also exceeded the rate of inflation. This is accurate, too. According to the data in the report, the rise over the past two years came after four consecutive annual declines, as this chart shows:  The report also provides data for the national tourism market thats comparable to the West Virginia numbers. According to the report, spending was $980 billion in 2018, a 4.1% increase over 2017. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but neither is the West Virginia figure, so the national and state figures can be compared equitably.) Justices 58% figure appears to come from comparing the most recent one-year increase in West Virginia (6.5%) with the most recent one-year increase nationally (4.1%). The West Virginia percentage increase is 58.5% bigger than the national increase. Justice said, West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58 percent. These numbers align with the findings of a longstanding annual study of the West Virginia and national tourism economies. We rate the statement True. On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money. Stock Learning Group 28  The full scam post that promised a way to "buy SpaceX stock before it goes public" read as follows: Bullish on the future of space travel? See how to invest in SpaceX before it goes Public! We help you pre-buy stocks in the latest up-and-coming companies, before most retail investors. Getting in on the best companies before they go public is how you can get the returns like recent IPOs such as: AirBnB - 130% return in 7 months.Palantir - 226% return in 10 months.Snowflake - 331% return in 10 months. We do one thing very well... ...get you access to the most popular companies before the public market has a chance. Click the Learn More button now and well show you how to invest in SpaceX before the public  This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust. crypto scams featured photos of Musk The Facebook account that hosted the ads showed up as a personal profile and not a page. It was named Tut Pro 1 38801324. The profile picture showed an image that said "Half Price Books," a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam. We asked the account about the strange profile photo. They responded, "This event is sponsored by Mr. Nino, a senior stock analyst. Join Mr. Nino's stock research group now and receive a stock book when you join the group." The crypto scams we covered in the past also claimed to feature a specialist who could help deliver on the scam's promise. In the crypto scams, the scammers called this person "the teacher." We asked the user if this "Mr. Nino" was "the teacher." The account responded, "Yes." If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia. TinEye.com reverse image search As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later. reported Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.com, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Sheetz, Michael. Elon Musk Says an IPO of SpaceXs Starlink Satellite Internet Business Is Still 3 or 4 Years Away. CNBC, 7 June 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/spacex-starlink-ipo-elon-musk-says-offering-is-3-or-4-years-away.html. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. Tut Pro 1 38801324. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100084130714561. On Oct. 18, 2022, we added a note that said a real company named Half Price Books had nothing to do with the scam. 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. With Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, poised torelease the 2023-25 state budgeton Feb. 15, 2023  deficits and surpluses in Wisconsin have again come to the forefront of the debate. In his state of the state speech, Evers gave a bit of a preview of his budget, outlining more than $1 billion in new spending. Republicans, who control the Legislature, called his plans too expensive  and pledged to toss aside his budget and start from scratch. All of this even as, in December, officials said the statesbudget surplus was at an all-time high. In a Jan. 3, 2023address to the state Senate, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, credited action by former Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, and the GOP-led Legislature with putting the state on a solid financial footing: In 2010, we inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit, he said. Over the last 12 years we have focused on investing in core priorities, responsible budgeting, reducing the tax burden on the hard- working families of Wisconsin and passing meaningful legislative reforms. Today we are looking at a projected surplus approaching 7 billion. Were interested in the first and last part of the statement: Was there a multi-billion dollar deficit in 2010, and is it nearing $7 billion now? As we examine the claim, well also look at what other factors were at work. In 2010, there was considerable debate around the size of the gap in the budget. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, argued the projected shortfall was as low as $1.5 billion. But his administrations official budget statementsuggested it was closer to $2.2 billion. Heres what we wrote in a Nov. 29, 2010fact-check: Even Department of Administration Secretary Daniel Schooff, who signed the deficit report, says $2.2 billion  not $1.5 billion  is the best starting point because the Medicaid and patient fund monies likely will fall to the state to cover. Indeed, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau had estimated that the shortfall could be as much as$2.7 billion. And University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky estimated it could even reach$3.1 billion. So, on the first part of the claim, LeMahieu is on target. On the second half of the claim, it has been well reported that estimates show ahistoric budget surplus of more than $7.1 billionat the end of the fiscal year. But by simply highlighting Republican policy moves over the past decade-plus, LeMahieu glosses past the pandemic in the room. As a Dec. 19, 2022report by the Milwaukee  Journal Sentinelnoted: While the governor's office and the state legislative branch would like to take credit for prudent financial planning it's the federal government that helped reduce state spending and boosted state revenues by enacting pandemic relief bills in 2020 and 2021. That includes bills such as the American Rescue Plan (ARP), passed in March 2021 under President Joe Biden, and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed in March 2020 under President Donald Trump. There was also the Families First Coronavirus Response Act also in March 2020. A June 2022Wisconsin Policy Forum reportestimated that state and local governments collected at least $19.9 billion in COVID-19 pandemic-related funds. That funding ultimately bolstered Wisconsins economy,Jason Stein, research director at the Wisconsin Policy Forum, told the Journal Sentinel. In the report, Stein noted that during the height of the Great Recession from 2009 through 2011, the state heavily used federal relief funds for both K-12 school aid and Medicaid. When those funds ran out, the state faced a difficult 2011-13 budget and ultimately cut state aid to schools and local governments substantially, he wrote. So, on this part, LeMahieu accurately quotes the number, but leaves out a key detail. In aSenate address, LeMahieu claimed: In 2010, (Wisconsin Republicans) inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit. ... Today we are looking at a projected surplus approaching 7 billion. He is right on the numbers, but in skipping past the role federal aid played in keeping state and local budgets afloat during the height of the pandemic, hes ignoring important information. Our definition of Mostly True is the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. In the spring of 1823, two men by the names of De Voe and Lozier (a retired butcher and a wealthy contractor, respectively) whiled away an idle day with an excursion to their familiar stomping grounds at New York City's Centre Market.  There, at a table in the back of the market, they regaled an enthralled audience of butchers, farmers, and fishmongers with an astounding tale: Manhattan Island was sinking.   By the 1820s, burgeoning New York City had become America's most populous city with 150,000 inhabitants, and the combined weight of all the additional people and the buildings and other infrastructure necessary to support them, the two men claimed, had made Manhattan too bottom-heavy, and the island was beginning to sink into the harbor.  Not to worry, De Voe and Lozier averred to the credulous crowd  they had been hired by New York mayor Stephen Allen to deal with the problem and had come up with a masterful plan to stave off  impending disaster: They were to oversee a massive, coordinated effort to saw Manhattan in half, then tow the lower half out in the harbor, turn it around, and reattach it.  The most heavily populated section of Manhattan would then be situated in the middle of a more balanced island, and the danger of its tipping and spilling into New York harbor would be ameliorated.   Maybe it sounded a bit incredible, but to an audience of uneducated New Yorkers who had witnessed the ongoing successful development of the Erie Canal, no engineering feat seemed beyond the abilities of dedicated, hard-working men. Erie Canal Such a mammoth undertaking would require a huge investment in labor and material, both of which the vendors and laborers found in the Centre Market were only too happy to volunteer to provide.  With New York ravaged by an economic depression and a yellow fever epidemic, work was hard to find.  The prospect of steady employment at good wages, even of a temporary nature, was a godsend. Over the ensuing weeks, De Voe and Lozier signed up the hundreds of eager workmen, craftsmen, and suppliers required for their project: the manual laborers needed to do the work of sawing the island in half (twenty men per saw, provided they could demonstrate a suitable ability to hold their breath while sawing underwater), rowing it out past Governor's and Ellis Islands into the harbor (one hundred men per oar), pivoting it, bringing it back in, and re-attaching it; the carpenters and joiners needed to fashion twenty 100-foot-long saws with three-foot teeth and two dozen 250-foot-long oars; the blacksmiths and ironworkers needed to create twenty-four towering cast iron oarlocks as well as huge anchors with long chains (to prevent the island's being swept out to sea by an unexpected storm); the contractors needed to construct housing for all the workmen; and the farmers and butchers needed to supply hundreds and thousands head of cattle, pigs, and chickens to keep everyone fed. As the day for the commencement of the project drew near, De Voe and Lozier announced their intention to have their army of laborers proceed to the work site in two groups.  Author Joel Rose imagined the scene that day: The men began to arrive early, as they had been instructed. Some were carrying tools. Shovels, axes, picks. Some pushed wheelbarrows. Some came with their wives and children. Contractors and carpenters drove up in wagons loaded with lumber and hammers and saws. Butchers drove herds of cattle and hogs, carts loaded with crated chickens. At each site they were met by a fife-and-drum corps that had been engaged by Lozier to lead the army of workers in their triumphant trek north. The atmosphere was jovial and full of hope. Estimates were that between five hundred and a thousand workers had shown up at each locale. They stood around for some time to no avail. Finally after several hours, a contingent was sent back to Centre Market to see if either or both Lozier and De Voe could be located or to learn what had caused their delay. At the market a message had been left. The message said that the pair had had to leave town, owing to matters of their health. For an hour the workers hung around wondering what to do, while the fife-and-drum bands continued on with their music. The mood grew increasingly angry. Gradually it dawned on more and more of them that they had been 'handsomely sold.' Several hundred men had been foolishly humbugged in one of the most improbable, celebrated hoaxes in American history.  Or had they? Although numerous accounts of this elaborate jape have been penned throughout the years, they all trace to a single source: an account given over thirty years after the fact by John De Voe to his nephew Thomas, a member of the New York Historical Society.  Thomas De Voe eventually published his uncle's reminiscences in The Market Book, his historical account of public markets in several eastern cities, and it is from this one work that all information about the great "Manhattan Sawed in Half" hoax springs.  Single-source tales are often problematic, and indeed problems abound with this particular source.  John De Voe couldn't recall important details, such as the year the prank occurred (it was either 1823 or 1824; he didn't remember which) or the first name used by his partner Lozier.  And although he admitted that "Lozier" was a pseudonym, he couldn't recall his partner's real name, even though the two men were supposedly friends. More suspect, though, nobody other than John De Voe seems to have left any record whatsoever of his participation in this gargantuan put-on, or of the put-on itself.  No newspaper of the day made any mention of this mammoth undertaking, or its failure to come off.  No published journals, diaries, or letters by New Yorkers of the era include any reference to a plan that supposedly enlisted hundreds of local workers and supporters.   No writer found this story sufficiently interesting to chronicle while anyone involved with (or fooled by) it was still alive.  No arrests, prosecutions, or civil lawsuits followed in the wake of this cruel exploitation of public gullibility. Plenty of excuses are offered for this suspicious lack of documentation  that De Voe and Lozier had committed no crime, that no one involved wanted to embarrass himself by admitting he'd been taken in, that most of those duped were immigrants circumspect about speaking to outsiders  but the improbability of a such an absurd prank's very visibly ensnaring several hundred victims in the country's largest city yet remaining completely unremarked upon cannot be dismissed.  The hoax here isn't that two men once led hundreds of foolish New Yorkers into falling for an incredibly silly scheme -- the real hoax is that so many people since then have believed they did. It's possible that De Voe did have a partner, and that they did once briefly lead a few nave Centre Market denizens into falling for a tall tale about sawing Manhattan in half to keep it from sinking, but no credible evidence exists to verify that they pulled off anything on the scale attributed to them by latter-day chroniclers.  In the end, though, as writer Joel Rose concluded an account of his efforts to trace the origins of the hoax: The hoax may never have occurred, and therefore deserved no further notice. But ... it became evident that the hoax's authenticity no longer mattered.  The story was part of the fabric of the city's history, as much as Washington Irving's Diedrich Knickerbocker, and Asbury's own gangs of New York, and against a context of nineteenth century ruse, hoax, and humbug, it was important. Or, as Margo Jefferson put it more succinctly: "The public enjoyed both tales ... People wanted to believe and know they'd be conned, as long as they didn't know when or how." Jefferson, Margo.  On Michael Jackson On Michael Jackson Rose, Joel.  New York Sawed in Half: An Urban Historical New York Sawed in Half: An Urban Historical Sifakis, Carl.  The Big Book of Hoaxes The Big Book of Hoaxes On Sept. 13, 2022, a Telegram user shared a baseless meme that hinted the sinking of the Titanic was an inside job. It read, "These men opposed globalist's world banks (Federal Reserve). Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, [and John] Jacob Astor [all] opposed the new Federal Reserve bank. Today, these men would be worth $11 billion. All three of these men were aboard the Titanic when it sank. All three died that night."   According to the TinEye reverse image search website, this meme had been shared since at least 2014. However, the rumor itself had started spreading several years before. It's true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus, and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim intimated by the meme was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. Titanic The misleading meme appears to have been born out of previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage. owned Past memes suggested that Morgan had somehow miraculously orchestrated the voyage to end in tragedy in order to kill Guggenheim, Straus, and Astor. According to the memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was because they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.) established The meme in question also said, "Today, these men would be worth $11 billion." However, it's unclear how much each of the men's descendants would be worth today had they survived. In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of Titanic goes all the way back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that showed Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea. published reported It's widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, the reporting from Reuters said. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died. died We contacted Behe in an effort to find out if there had been any updates since Reuters published its story in 2021. "To the best of my knowledge, the conspiracy theory is just as false today as it was when it was first created, and no important new revelations have turned up within the last couple of years," Behe told us in an email dated Jan. 8, 2023. "Sadly, once these nonsensical conspiracy theories have been foisted upon the general public via the internet, the theories are destined to plague humanity forevermore and will continue to fool innocent people who are unfamiliar with the facts." For further details, Behe pointed us in the direction of historian J. Kent Layton, who is credited as an author for books including, "Conspiracies at Sea: Titanic and Lusitania," "On a Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic," and "Recreating Titanic & Her Sisters: A Visual History." "We've been tackling this nonsense with historical data since at least the late-90s to early-00s," Layton told us by email in June 2023. "However, social media is a fantastic breeding ground for conspiracies of all sorts.Titanicseems to be a favorite of many." Layton remarked to us in detail regarding why the conspiracy theory made no sense to him: I would point out that if the sinking had actually been a conspiracy to kill those three individuals, there would have been no way that they could ensure their actual demise unless they had locked them somewhere inside the ship to die as it sank. Instead, the evidence indicates that all three were seen during the sinking. Guggenheim famously case aside his heavy coat and lifebelt after his steward had helped him into them, saying that he and his manservant were 'dressed in their best and prepared to go down as gentlemen'. Straus nearly made it into a lifeboat, and fellow passengers even recommended that he board a lifeboat with his wife, but he deferred, preferring to let women and children board while he waited behind with other men. Astor was seen very late in the disaster, helping his wife into a lifeboat; when he asked an officer loading the boat, apparently Second Officer Lightoller, if he could board, Lightoller said no. However, Lightoller had maintained a rather rigid policy of allowing no men into the lifeboats that he filled, and there had been plenty of other opportunities for Astor to board a boat. In fact, we recently discovered an account that indicated that Astor and his wife had approached an early boat on the other side of the ship, when the situation seemed less serious, but that they had stepped back from the lifeboat of their own accord at the last moment and stayed for a while longer on the ship. If a conspiracy to kill these three men had been so deep and involved so as to actually sink an ocean liner and kill hundreds of innocent people, one would think that the individuals responsible would not have left the survival of these three men to chance. This story will be updated in the future should we uncover any further helpful information. Beattie, Andrew, et al. "How the Federal Reserve Was Formed." Investopedia, 24 June 2007, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/federal-reserve.asp. Bird, Mike. "There's a Wild Conspiracy Theory That the Rothschilds Sank the Titanic to Set up the Federal Reserve." Business Insider, 12 Oct. 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/conspiracy-theory-that-the-rothschilds-and-federal-reserve-proponents-sank-the-titanic-2015-10. "CORRECTED-Fact Check-J.P. Morgan Did Not Sink the Titanic to Push Forward Plans for the U.S. Federal Reserve." Reuters, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-titanic-conspiracy-idUSL1N2LF18G. "Federal Reserve Board - Structure of the Federal Reserve System." Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm. "ISIDOR STRAUS URGES NEW BANKING PLAN; Replies to J.J. Hill's Attack on the National Reserve Association Scheme." The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1911, https://www.nytimes.com/1911/10/16/archives/isidor-straus-urges-new-banking-plan-replies-to-jj-hills-attack-on.html. "John Jacob Astor | American Businessman [1864-1912]." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Jacob-Astor-American-businessman-1864-1912. Kennedy, Dana. "Divers Find Champagne, Dishes In Shipwreck, But No Gold Yet." AP News, 16 July 1987, https://apnews.com/article/a9b6a7e5cd8104edf4501f876eebf44b. Segal, Troy, et al. "Central Bank." Investopedia, 18 Nov. 2003, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/centralbank.asp. "The White Star Line and The International Mercantile Marine Company." Titanic Historical Society, 28 Mar. 2018, https://titanichistoricalsociety.org/international-mercantile-marine-company/. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. "Titanic | History, Sinking, Rescue, Survivors, Movies, & Facts." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Titanic. June 20, 2023: This reporting was updated to include insight from George Behe. June 22, 2023: This reporting was updated to include thoughts from author and historian J. Kent Layton. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 On the morning of 1 September 2016 a SpaceX Falcon-9 rocket carrying an Israeli satellite called Amos-6 exploded three minutes prior to a scheduled static fire test. SpaceX confirmed the event, stating that an anomaly had occurred in the upper stage of the oxygen tank as they were loading propellant into the rocket. The cause is still under review. anomaly Also lost during the explosion was the rockets payload: the Amos-6 satellite, which was built by Israel Aerospace Industries (an aerospace and defense contractor) and operated by the telecommunications company Spacecom. According to Spacecoms web site, the new satellite would provide expanded coverage and redundancy in case of other existing satellite malfunction: expanded coverage and redundancy AMOS-6 strengthens 4W orbital location with wider coverage and new services. AMOS-6 high power and large amount of Ku-band transponders offer Spacecoms existing and new customers a reliable growth-engine for their business. AMOS-6 enhances Spacecoms existing service offering by supporting a full range of services, including Direct-To-Home (DTH), video distribution, VSAT communications and broadband Internet. Facebook had also leased some of the communication equipment on this satellite to support their effort to provide free internet access to large swaths of Africa. After this loss of the satellite, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a statement: posted a statement As I'm here in Africa, I'm deeply disappointed to hear that SpaceX's launch failure destroyed our satellite that would have provided connectivity to so many entrepreneurs and everyone else across the continent. Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will connect people as well. We remain committed to our mission of connecting everyone, and we will keep working until everyone has the opportunities this satellite would have provided. The most widely shared video of the explosion comes from USLaunchReport.com (an NGO that produces video reports of all things space"). This video appears to show a rapidly moving object cross above the rocket right before it explodes: USLaunchReport.com https://www.youtube.com/embed/_BgJEXQkjNQThe video does show an object that enters from the right of the screen and passes in a fairly straight line above the rocket (at least from the camera angle) as it explodes. This has led to accusations from some corners of the internet that someone or something of intentionally bringing the rocket down. The video Reddit, Sptember 2016Early this morning there was a test-fire for Elon Musk's Falcon-9 rocket, which is standard procedure before any launch (static fire test). They reported an anomalous explosion originating near the second stage oxygen tank. From footage posted by USLaunchReport.Com, (a non profit that brings Veterans to rocket launches  I don't question the footage on that note) there is a clearly identifiable-unidentifiable that passes by at incredible rate of speed as the explosion occurs. It destroyed the launch vehicle & the payload. Hypothesis: The AMOS-6 was destroyed by the passing UFO. (I know this is hard to accept for some, but others who are aware of certain things going on right now will appreciate this.) Some culprits discussed on the original Reddit thread include: aliens, a private aerospace competitor to SpaceX, a government worried about an Israeli spy satellite/weapons system, and/or Facebooks world domination plans. These claims have been amplified by the conspiracy focused website Neon Nettle and others. Reddit thread Neon Nettle What complicates this evidence is that there are a number of other objects, generally reported as birds or bugs, that make similar appearances before (and after) the explosion with far less fanfare. To successfully argue something scandalous, one has to prove that the object cant be a bird or a bug. Those in favor of an intentional sabotage conspiracy point to three arguments: Unfortunately, the fact that a massive telephoto lens captured the video adds to the challenge, if not outright impossibility of accurately assessing any of these questions scientifically. This camera, based on the time it took the noise of the explosion to reach it (~12 seconds) is easily over two miles away from the pad (assuming sound traveling at 0.2 miles per second). The further the zoom, the more of an effect the lens will have on an object's perceived distance and size. An object closer to the camera, additionally, would be required to travel at a much slower speed to make it from one side of the frame to the other compared to something two miles away. more of an effect Moreover, YouTube videos such as the uslaunchreport.com video are subjected to lossy compression, an effect resulting in loss of information as well as the introduction of potential artifacts. Per the FBIs Recommendations and Guidelines for the Use of Digital Image Processing in the Criminal Justice System: lossy compression Recommendations and Guidelines for the Use of Digital Image Processing in the Criminal Justice System Lossy compression achieves greater reduction in file size by removing both redundant and irrelevant information. Because the irrelevant information (as determined by the compression algorithm) cannot be replaced upon reconstruction of an image for display, lossy compression results in some loss of image content as well as the introduction of artifacts. This effect is minimal when you are not zooming in; but it becomes a bigger issue when you try to get a level of detail that has already been removed by a compression algorithm. compression algorithm An image treated in this way has been making the rounds as evidence that this object was clearly behind the left-most tower on the launch pad (these towers are used to protect the rocket from lightning strikes): image treated in this way Without more information, it is impossible to know what these pixels are telling us. If the object is in the foreground (and not in the background, as conspiracy theorists suggest) then the issues of the object's apparent larger-than-bird size and faster-than-bug speed can easily be attributed to that fact. The other argument in favor of the object being both distant and fast moving also comes from questionable handling of compressed images. According to some believers, there is a reflected glow off of the object when it passes over the explosion. These images, which also purport to show that the object doesnt look bird- or bug-like, have been enhanced, by methods that are not plainly documented: These images It is unclear what processes, outside of inverting the colors, went into the creation of these images; but zooming in on the object in each frame without any enhancement does not appear to reveal much about reflected light or shape: https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-07-at-11.32.48-AM.pngA final flaw in the alien/government/evil corporation argument is that it does not explain how an object traveling above the rocket (without making any physical contact) would cause its explosion, nor does it touch on why this novel method might have been employed. Do we know for sure what this object is? No. But the prevalence of similar harmless objects prior to the explosion, the fact that the evidence is based on wishfully enhanced screengrabs of downsampled video, and the fact that rockets are super explosive on their own, make an outside agent low on the list of possible explanations. Updated [30 September 2017]: Added information about other websites sharing similar claims.