Check Fraud by Manipulating Routing Numbers
Claim:  Forger steals money by manipulating ABA symbols on checks. LEGEND Origins:  One of the ways paperhangers were supposedly able to pass bad checks easily once upon a time was by manipulating the American Bankers Association (ABA) numbers encoded on nearly all checks with magnetic ink.  Although the American banking system relies heavily upon this information for the automated sorting and routing of checks, many bank personnel are unfamiliar with or pay little attention to these numbers. ABA The system has changed a little bit over the years, but nowadays checks typically bear a nine-digit ABA routing number printed in the bottom left-hand corner (indicated as #5 in the above diagram).  In general, the first four digits are a Federal Reserve routing symbol,  identifying which of the twelve Federal Reserve districts the check was printed in (and a city within that district).  The next four digits are an ABA institution identifier which designates the bank on which the check is drawn, and the last number is a check digit. Federal Reserve Check forgers manipulated the banking system by altering the ABA routing numbers on the bad checks they passed so that the numbers identified different banks than the ones whose information was printed on the face of those checks.  For example, a forger attempting to pass a bad check in Boston might present a check whose printed information indicated it was drawn on a Philadelphia bank, but whose  routing number had been altered to indicate that it came from a bank in the 12th Federal Reserve district (which encompasses the western United States).  The Boston bank would expect a check drawn on a Philadelphia bank to clear within two or three days and assume that if it hadn't been kicked back to them by the end of the third day, it was good.  However, the altered routing number would cause the automated sorting machinery to send the check on to a San Francisco clearing house for processing.  Once the check arrived in San Francisco, a computer there would kick it out because the routing number didn't match the other information encoded on the check, and the check would be mailed back to the Philadelphia bank for processing.  This whole process could take several days, but because the Boston bank assumed the check was good after the third day, the forger could withdraw his funds and leave town long before they discovered his check was phony. Con man Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) claims in his memoirs that he "was the first check swindler to use the routing numbers racket" in the late 1960s.  One of Thomas Whiteside's 1977 New Yorker articles included an example of what supposedly happened when a forger altered checks drawn on the Chemical Bank in New York so that their routing numbers identified them as coming from a Los Angeles bank: Although the check bore the name and address of the Chemical Bank in New York, the Federal Reserve data-processing system scanned only the magnetic-ink code on it, identified it as a Bank of America check, and routed it to Los Angeles.  The check remained in transit for perhaps two days. At the end of that time, it was run through the computer mechanism at the Bank of America.  The computer, instantly searching its memory for a Bank of America account number matching that of the magnetic-ink strip on the check, rejected the check, which then went into a clerical pool for manual handling. Since the printed logotype on the check clearly identified it as a check that belonged in the Chemical Bank in New York, the clerk handling the machine-rejected check sent it back to the Chemical Bank by mail, assuming that a simple routing error had been made.  The check was then in transit for another two days. Back at the Chemical Bank, the check was put into the computerized sorting system for final clearance. But instead of that, it went into motion again: the Chemical Bank computing system passed it on to the Federal Reserve System, which routed it out to the Los Angeles bank again, which routinely sent it back to New York, and so on. The fraud was uncovered only when checks issued by the depositor became so frayed from mechanical handling in the computer system that they could no longer be read automatically ... [b]y that time, according to an auditor who told me of the affair, the depositor had disappeared with more than $1 million in cash. Last updated:  1 July 2014    Whiteside, Thomas.  Computer Capers.   New York: Mentor, 1978.  ISBN 0-451-62173-5  (pp. 31-33).
On 28 May 2015, a news-like link began to circulate on Facebook claiming popular actor Channing Tatum came out as gay. The link's headline stated "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay," and the preview text read "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay following a number of rumours":  While the rumor was briefly popular on sites like Twitter and Facebook among Tatum's fans, it was generated by the site Feednewz.com. Feednewz.com is not a news site; rather, its primary purpose is the generation of user-submitted links that appear to be news stories. As with a similar viral hoax involving EastEnders actor Danny Dyer, the Channing Tatum hoax spread atypically far for a FeedNewz.com link due to user interest in the fabricated claim. Danny Dyer Claims like the one about Tatum often spread due to a compelling headline alone. Readers who clicked through to the appended link were greeted with the following image revealing the prank:  Channing Tatum did not reveal any new information about his sexuality, and he remained married to actress Jenna Dewan until they separated in March 2018.  Jenna Dewan In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of articles which claimed that the United States had "led the entire world" in reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, along with other greenhouse gases like methane, contribute significantly to global warming.  contribute On Feb. 13, the right-leaning website The Daily Wire published an article with the headline "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019." That piece reported as follows: article "The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report. 'The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis  a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,' The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. 'US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.' On the same day, the right-leaning website Breitbart published a similar article with the headline "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019," writing: article "The United States led the world in tackling CO2 emissions last year while combining that singular success with solid economic growth, a new report reveals. It has also been confirmed while the U.S. was hitting its climate goals, at the same time '80 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly' to global increases." On Feb. 11, the right-leaning Washington Examiner wrote that "U.S. emissions fell 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States leading the world in total emissions decline since 2000." That prompted Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to tweet: wrote tweet "FACT you will NEVER see on the 6 oclock news: U.S. emissions FELL 2.9%, or by 140 million tons, continuing the trend of the United States LEADING THE WORLD IN TOTAL EMISSIONS DECLINE since 2000."   Based on the data contained in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) February 2020 report, it would be accurate to say that in 2019 the U.S. had the largest year-on-year reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country, in absolute terms. However, claiming  as The Daily Wire and Breitbart did  that the U.S. had "led the world" or was "the global leader" in reducing emissions that year, risked giving readers the mistaken impression that the U.S. had performed better than any country when it came to reducing CO2 emissions. This was not the case, because the U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions by just 2.9%, while other countries and regions fared better. Germany, for example, achieved a year-on-year reduction of 8% in its CO2 emissions.  The source of the aforementioned claims was the IEA Feb. 11 data release entitled "Global CO2 Emissions in 2019." The IEA told Snopes that a more detailed, country-by-country breakdown of emissions data was not yet available, but would be published in March. However, some country- and region-specific details were already clear.  According to the report, the overall global trend was as follows: report "Global energy-related CO2 emissions flattened in 2019 at around 33 gigatonnes (Gt), following two years of increases. This resulted mainly from a sharp decline in CO2 emissions from the power sector in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar PV), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output." Although advanced economies (a category that includes the U.S., the European Union, Australia, Japan, Canada, and others) experienced positive economic growth in 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions also fell, on average, in those countries and regions. The U.S. produced around 4.8 Gt (gigatons/billions of tons) of CO2 in 2019. That was 140 Mt (megatons/millions of tons) fewer than it produced in 2018  the biggest single absolute reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions by any country. The U.S. produced around 2.9% less CO2 in 2019 than it did in 2018.  The IEA report added that: "US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather." The large absolute reduction in CO2 emissions in the United States in 2019 is in part a function of the sheer volume of CO2 produced there (which is in part determined by the large size of the U.S. economy). By contrast, its rate of emissions reduction was not as significant as that achieved in other countries and regions. For example, the IEA report explained that Germany achieved a year-on-year reduction in CO2 emissions of 8%, while Japan's emissions fell by 4.3%  significantly greater rates of decline than the 2.9% achieved in the U.S.  Despite having an overall CO2 output that is almost 40% smaller than that of the United States (2.9 Gt vs 4.8 Gt), the European Union still managed to achieve a greater absolute reduction in emissions than the U.S. in 2019 (160 Mt vs 140 Mt). That was because emissions fell at a significantly greater rate in the EU than in the U.S. (5% versus 2.9%).  It's true that, according to the IEA's February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore "led the entire world" or was a "global leader" in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did.  As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  "The Causes of Climate Change."
  Accessed 19 February 2020. Saavedra, Ryan.  "United States Led Entire World in Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  The Daily Wire.  13 February 2020. Kent, Simon.  "Report: U.S. the Global Leader for Reducing CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  Breitbart.  13 February 2020. Siegel, Josh.  "Demise of Coal in Rich Countries Brings Global Carbon Emissions to a Stall."
  Washington Examiner. 11 February 2020. The International Energy Agency.  "Data Release -- Global CO2 Emissions in 2019."
  11 February 2020. Scam:  The FBI is offering "ATM Cards" to help victims recover money from Nigerian scammers. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Federal Bureau Of Investigation ATM CARD PAYMENT NOTIFICATIONFrom: Federal Bureau Of Investigation (robertmueller@fbi.gov)Sent: Mon 9/01/08 9:24 AMReply-to: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.com  Anti-Terrorist and Monitory Crimes Division.Federal Bureau Of Investigation.J. Edgar. Hoover Building, Washington D.CTelephone Number : ( 202 )-324-3001  ATTN: BENEFICIARY  This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr Frank Nweke, none officials of Oceanic Bank, none officials of Zenith Bank and some impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation agents. During our Investigation, it came to our notice that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment. So therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry Of Finance on your behalf and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in the total amount of $800,000.00 USD which will be deposited into an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw funds anywhere of the world. You now have the lawful right to claim your funds which have been deposited into the ATM CARD. Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in this transaction, you are now to be rest assured that this transaction is legitimate and completely risk-free as it is our duty to Protect and Serve citizens of the United States Of America. All you have to do is immediately contact the ATM CARD CENTER via E-mail for instructions on how to procure your Approval Slip which contains details on how to receive and activate your ATM CARD for immediate use to withdraw funds being paid to you. We have confirmed that the amount required to procure the Approval Slip will cost you a total of $550 USD which will be paid directly to the ATM CARD CENTER agent via Western Union Money Transfer / MoneyGram Money Transfer. Below, you shall find contact details of the Agent whom will process your transaction: CONTACT INFORMATION NAME: MR. PAUL SMITHEMAIL: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.comTelephone Number : +234-808-252-6229 Immediately contact Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre with the following information: Full Name:Address:City:State:Zip Code:Direct Phone Number:Current Occupation:Annual Income:  Once you have sent the required information to Mr. Paul Smith he will contact you with instructions on how to make the payment of $550 USD for the Approval Slip after which he will proceed towards delivery of the ATM CARD without any further delay. You have hereby been authorized/guaranteed by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation to commence towards completing this transaction, as there shall be NO delay once payment for the Approval Slip has been made to the authorized agent. Once you have completed payment of $550 to the agent in charge of this transaction, immediately contact me back so as to ensure your ATM CARD gets to you rapidly. FBI DirectorRobert Mueller. Origins:  The message quoted above represents another slightly different turn on the venerable Nigerian Scam: Rather than providing straightforward bait to Nigerian Scam  lure new victims into the scam, it seeks to re-hook those who have already been snared once with yet another false promise of easy money. The basic premise of the Nigerian Scam is that the target is offered a substantial cash reward for helping out with a transaction involving the transfer of a large sum of money (a transaction that usually needs to be kept hush-hush).  However, the transaction never takes place, and the reward is never forthcoming; instead, the target is repeatedly called upon to shell out ever-increasing amounts of his own money to clear away a variety of fictitious roadblocks (e.g., legal fees, documentation fees, customs fees, taxes, bribes).  This version of the Nigerian Scam targets those who have already participated in (or been victimized by) it, offering the lure of FBI assistance in recovering the rewards that victims were cheated out of the first time around ... all they need do is send $550 to the FBI for an "ATM CARD" that will allow them to tap into accounts holding $800,000. If the numerous red flags in the basic version of the Nigerian Scam weren't enough to warn away potential victims, this variant adds several more factors that should give anyone pause about its legitimacy:  The FBI wouldn't acknowledge that you have been participating in "illegal transactions" with foreign nationals and then turn around and reward you for having done so.  (They'd probably be hauling you off to custody and charging you with a half-dozen federal crimes.)  The FBI wouldn't be conducting criminal investigations and doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars via e-mail. (They'd be sending agents out to meet and talk with you personally.)   The FBI wouldn't help fraud victims recover legitimately owed monies and then turn around and charge them several hundred dollars to access those funds.  The FBI wouldn't be asking you to contact them by placing a phone call to Nigeria (as indicated by the "234" country code prefix to the phone number provided for "Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre").  You'd be talking to an agent from a local or other U.S.-based FBI office.  The FBI wouldn't be collecting sensitive personal information from the public by asking them to provide that information via the extremely unsecure method of e-mailing it to a Hotmail account.  (They wouldn't be asking for or collecting this kind of information via the Internet in the first place, and even if they were, at the very least they'd be using a secure web protocol with encryption rather than plain-text e-mail, and the collection method would be tied to an FBI web site and not a commercial e-mail provider.)Last updated:  11 July 2011    Flaum, David.  "Scam Hits Sellers Over Net."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  2 March 2003  (p. G1).     Jones, Matthew.  "Beach Police Officers Warn of Fake-Check Web Scam."   The Virginian-Pilot.  9 January 2003  (p. B4).     Kades, Deborah.  "Wisconsin Residents Fall Prey to Used Vehicle, Lottery Scams."   The Wisconsin State Journal.  12 December 2002.     Kristof, Kathy M.  "Nigerian Money Con Targets Small Firms."   Los Angeles Times.  7 September 2003 ; (p. C3).     Associated Press.  "Missoula Credit Union Members Taken."   15 March 2003. Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera rolls without a security detail, a fact he likes to bring up as he campaigns to replace U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. Its an example of penny-pinching that he uses to set himself apart from the field of five Republicans vying for Rubios seat, as well as some predecessors whodrewscrutinyover transportation spending. I've actually cut the budget of the office by more than half, reduced the staff, he said in aninterviewwith Fox 13sMoney, Power, Politicsshow in Tampa which ran on air April 30. I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not ever take a security detail. Lopez-Cantera had dropped this tidbit at a speech earlier that month with theHillsborough County GOP, explaining, Its a waste of your money, and Im protected by the Second Amendment. (He has a concealed weapons permit.) With Lopez-Cantera playing up this factoid as an accomplishment, we wanted to know if he was really the first No. 2 guy to say nah, Ive got this, to taxpayer-paid protection. How he declined his security detail According tostate law, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall assign one patrol officer to the Office of the Governor  it does not mention the lieutenant governor. In practice, the right to a security detail for protection and transportation has been extended to recent lieutenant governors. But after Gov. Rick Scott plucked him for the office in 2014, Lopez-Cantera verbally declined that protection. In March, the Legislature approved a budget thatadded some languageto state that the security patrol is at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems that Lopez-Cantera had that discretion anyway, but the new language in law makes that clear. The Legislature also added language to give the right to security for the attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner. That appears to stem from a credible threat onAttorney General Pam Bondiin 2015, which prompted law enforcement to provide around-the-clock security for her for six weeks at a cost of $216,000. Scotts press office re-emphasized that it was Lopez-Canteras choice  and not, asrumor had it, the decision of former Scott chief of staff Adam Hollingsworth to downplay the role  in response to our inquiry. Still, there appeared to be a push to reduce expenses in that position after multiple news reports cited the amount of money spent on security and travel for Jeff Kottkamp under Gov. Charlie Crist and Jennifer Carroll, Scotts first lieutenant governor. The state spent$1.1 millionover four years for security and transportation for Kottkamp. In Carroll's first year in office, the Florida Highway Patrol spent $288,000 on travel and security. But after spending restrictions were put in place, that total dropped to$89,000in 2012. Lopez-Cantera garners even less attention as lieutenant governor than Carroll, hardly ever appearing alongside Scott at public events and keeping a sparse public calendar of events, theMiami Herald/Tampa Bay TimesTallahassee bureau noted inJuly 2015. Lopez-Cantera had six days of security  at a cost of $27,000  in May 2014 following a threat against him, according to a Florida Department of Law Enforcementreport. Past lieutenant governors and security The lieutenant governor role was revived in 1968 after a century without one. We tried to contact Lopez-Canteras predecessors (who are still alive today) for the low-down. The Florida Highway Patrol said that the following lieutenant governors had a security detail: Wayne Mixson (1979-87), Bobby Brantley (1987-1991), Buddy MacKay (1991-1998), Frank Brogan (1999-2003), Toni Jennings (2003-07), Kottkamp (2007-11) and Carroll (2011-13.) We attempted to reach all of those former lieutenant governors and were able to interview all but Brogan, Jennings and MacKay. Four confirmed they used the security detail. The only one who said he didnt use a security detail was Jim Williams, who was the lieutenant governor 1975-79. I didnt have security, Williams, 93, told PolitiFact Florida. Anita Oneida Darley, his aide at the time, also said he didnt have a security detail. The Florida Highway Patrol could not confirm. Mixson said that he used a security detail when he traveled within Florida, but he did not when he was in the office or when he traveled to foreign countries. The Florida Highway Patrol had traditionally supplied a security individual and they did, Mixson said. Brantley said he had a state trooper who traveled with him sometimes, including on a trip to Canada. He said the trooper served mostly as a driver. He had a desk inside my office, Brantley said. If I didnt have a need for him Id have him go and do patrol duty. He would actually go on the street and stop speeders. Brantley said that Brogan was the first one he recalled with an actual plainclothes security detailing talking in their sleeve and all that stuff. Kottkamp, now a lawyer in Tallahassee, said the security detail came with the job. On the night Gov. Crist and I were elected  they showed up at the hotel, he said. Someone was with me and the governor from that point on. It was a responsibility the FHP took very seriously. FHP leadership viewed it as a legal obligation to insure continuity of government. Carroll said troopers would pick her up to provide security when she traveled to other parts of the state. Our ruling Lopez-Cantera said, I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not take a security detail. He went without a security detail when he started in 2014  a break from most lieutenant governors in recent memory who have used state security. The only one we could find who said he did not have security detail was Jim Williams, lieutenant governor from 1975-79. The state could not confirm one way or another. That was about 40 years ago, so to us Lopez-Canteras point still holds water. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f3425ea7-664c-4d1c-9bc5-bb771765d290 An image supposedly showing a meme that was posted to 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden's Facebook page featuring an endorsement from University of Alabama's football coach Nick Saban was circulated on social media in September 2020: This image was not shared to Biden's Facebook page, and it does not show a genuine endorsement from Saban.   This image first started circulating in April 2020, when it was posted to College Football Trash Talk Nation, a Facebook page that describes its content as a mix of "memes, satirical quotes, trash talk and more." While this image was originally shared as a joke, it was recirculated on social media as if it were genuine after Saban showed support for the Black Lives Matter movement in August 2020. College Football Trash Talk Nation Alabama.com reported: reported Alabama coach Nick Saban led a march Monday afternoon of hundreds of the universitys athletes, coaches and staff that was organized to protest racial injustice in the country. Saban was at the front of a large crowd of players who walked from the Mal Moore athletic facility to Foster Auditoriums schoolhouse door. Senior running back Najee Harris walked next to Saban wearing a T-shirt reading, Defend Black Lives; racial solidarity against this corrupt system. Other players walked behind Saban holding a banner reading, Black Lives Matter. The march was also advertised on social media over the weekend by players with the hashtag #BLM. As the Black Lives Matter movement has received support from Biden and various other liberal politicians, and condemnation from U.S. President Donald Trump and conservative politicians, Saban's involvement in this march was interpreted by some on social media as a tacit endorsement of Biden. When purveyors of misinformation started to recirculate this meme, some were ready to believe that it was real.  But this image does not feature a genuine quote from Saban, nor does it show a genuine image that was shared by the Biden campaign. This meme was created using a still from an advertisement Saban did for Aflac insurance:  It should also be noted that while Saban did march against racial injustice, he has not officially endorsed Biden for president. As far as we can tell, Saban has not endorsed anyone for president in 2020, and judging by his previous comments, he likely won't be endorsing anyone soon.  In 2016, Saban explained why he didn't endorse a candidate for president: explained If I say I like one person, that means everybody that voted for the other person doesn't like me. So, why would I do that? I want what's best for our country. I'm not sure I can figure that out. I want what's best for people who want to improve the quality of their life. I hope whoever our leader is will do all that he can do to make our country safe and improve the quality of life for a lot of the people we have in our country and I don't think I am qualified to determine who that should be. Alabama.com.  "Nick Saban Leads Black Lives Matter March in Tuscaloosa."
  31 August 2020. Sports Illustrated.  "Alabama Coach Nick Saban Says He Was Unaware of Election." 
 10 November 2016. Many social media users have encountered a post showing a picture of a little girl in what looks to be a hospital bed, along with any one of several captions indicating she is awaiting a kidney transplant and will receive $1 every time her picture is shared via social media:  She gets a dollar for every pic that's shared on messenger it goes towards her kidney transplant.... you gotta share plz she is my neighbors kid The child pictured here is not awaiting the transplant of a kidney (or any other organ).  According to Click Paran, she is (as of October 2017) a four-year-old Brazilian girl named Aninha who is undergoing chemotherapy for treatment of leukemia in Paran (one of Brazil's 26 states). Click Paran This item is just another iteration of a long-running online hoax/scam entreating users to share posts and photographs under the false premise that doing so will help to secure an organ transplant or money for surgery needed by a desperately ill child. transplant money Even if no money actually changes hands in connection with these posts, the sharing of them indirectly assists scammers by driving followers, shares, and likes to their social media pages, creating popular platforms from which they can launch other fraudulent schemes. Claim:  Photographs shows a 412-lb. deer killed in Nebraska.   Partly true. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] For all you deer hunters; How about this deer?  Could you imagine! 412 pound deer killed along Clarion River in North West PennsylvaniaGood GOD   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is one big deer...Deer was killed in Clarion County, Pa. , weighed 412 lbs. Supposedly could be the heaviest whitetail ever taken.Cabala's HERE WE COME    Origins:  Three common characteristics of just about every set of Internet-circulated photos purporting to document someone's having killed a very large (if not the largest) example of a particular species are:  The photographs will circulate in multiple versions, each stating a different locale where the killing supposedly took place.    Viewers will debate the authenticity of the photographs, picking on small details such as shadowing, coloring, and proportion as evidence that the images have been digitally manipulated.    Hunters, wildlife experts, and others will maintain that the animal pictured is significantly smaller and/or lighter than claimed in the accompanying text. All of these characteristics apply to the above-displayed photographs of a claimed 412-lb. white-tailed buck deer killed by a hunter.  The earliest versions of these e-mailed pictures said the deer was taken in Nebraska, but later versions changed the site of the kill to "along Clarion River in North West Pennsylvania."  Internet pundits maintained that the images were faked because the deer's coloration appeared inconsistent and/or its antlers looked too small.  Media skeptics asserted that the deer was far smaller than claimed, as exemplified by this excerpt from a Utica Observer-Dispatch article: Some readers have been kind enough to send me photos of the 412-pound buck from Nebraska that is making the rounds on the internet.  It's a big deer, to be sure, but it is not 412 pounds or anywhere close. Camera angles and advantageous poses make the buck appear to be much larger than it is.I contacted Kit Hams at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and he said their staff has seen this photo many times. Hams doubts its authenticity, for the same reasons I do. He said he was told the hunter was from Truman, Arkansas. The commission came up with a name, but was unable to identify that person as a permit holder in Nebraska. A guy kills the biggest, fattest whitetail almost anyone has ever heard of and his name isn't plastered all over the country? Not very likely.  Hams said he believes the biggest deer he's ever checked in his state weighed in about 250 pounds field dressed. That would be a shade over 300 on the hoof, and that is a very, very big deer. And a Toledo Blade columnist suggested the photographs were outright fakes: Call it a cabin-fever buck  the photographs of a supposed 412-pound white-tailed buck deer circulating among e-mails of late, that is. The thing, in a classic bowhunting "success" pose with hunter and buddies, is so big that it pushes the envelope of credibility to the breaking point. It could simply be a dead-of-winter-and-there-ain't-no-ice-fishin' prank. It could be the clever work of photo-doctoring, which is so easy to do these days, even on a PC at home. A copy will not be printed with this column simply because it could encourage too many viewers of the photo to jump to conclusions.  In January 2006, Dennis Anderson of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote a column expressing skepticism about these photos similar to that contained in the newspaper articles excerpted above.   A few weeks later Anderson reported that he had been contacted by anArkansas resident named Stan Whitt, who said that he had killed the deer while bow hunting on a Nebraska Indian reservation in November 2005 (and that the deer was taken on an Indian reservation explained why Nebraska state wildlife officials were unaware of it).  Whitt provided Anderson with all sorts of detail about where and how and he had killed the animal: Whitt says he was hunting on the reservation last November with three friends from Arkansas. He says he and his friends hunt with bows only and  that he has hunted deer and other big game in about 20 states. He shot the deer on a Saturday morning as it moved from water to a bedding area, Whitt said.  "I killed him at five paces," he said, from a portable stand about 25 feet high in a tree. Whitt said he had to hold his bowstring (he shoots a Mathews bow) back 10 minutes while the deer approached. He said he shot the deer virtually straight down, the shot striking behind the left shoulder and 3 inches from the spine. His arrow carried a 100-grain Simmons broadhead. The animal disappeared in the far distance, Whitt said, losing the arrow as he ran. Four hours later, Whitt began his search for the deer. He said he looked alone until dark without finding the animal. The next morning one of his friends joined the search, as well as a reservation game warden and another man. Whitt said his friend found the deer in a draw or ravine about noon that day, a Sunday. However, the true size of the deer is questionable and unconfirmable.  Whitt admitted that the animal was "somewhat bloated" by the time they found it the following day, and that he did not actually have it weighed.  Instead, he took the deer to the reservation wildlife office, where its live weight was estimated at 412 lbs. from a procedure that involved measuring its girth behind its front legs.   Although the procedure used supposedly has only a 6% margin of error, the 412-lb. is nonetheless only an estimate, andone possibly subject to inflation due to the "somewhat bloated" condition of the deer. Last updated:  10 November 2006    Sources:   Anderson, Dennis.  "Bigger or Byte-Sized?"   [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  22 January 2006  (p. C18).    Anderson, Dennis.  "Claim Staked on Huge Deer That Caused Internet Stir."   [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  11 February 2006  (p. C18).    Pitarresi, John.  "Buck Unlikely to Be 412 Pounds."   [Utica] Observer-Dispatch.  29 January 2006.    Pollick, Steve.  "Authorities Don't Buy Photos of 400-Pound Deer."   The [Toledo] Blade.  31 January 2006. On the heels of a disappointing jobs report, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Barack Obama, shined the best light he could on the administrations economic record during the June 5, 2011, edition of ABCsThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Two days before his appearance, the government announced that the economy had created a net of only 54,000 jobs in May -- a number well below expectations, and also below the number of jobs created in the previous few months.Amanpour pressed Goolsbee on the issue:What would you do to get this off the slow burner? she asked.Goolsbee responded, Well, I would say two or three things. The first is, the president has never stopped talking about jobs. For him, the growth strategy is the No. 1 issue. Now, we must live within our means. We have a moment that we can talk about long-run deficit reduction. And the vice president's leading an effort to do that, that the president has asked him to. But the president is getting up every day -- on Friday, he's going out to Ohio to talk about jobs in manufacturing, (and) manufacturing is having its best employment year in almost 15 years.We thought wed check whether Goolsbee was right about manufacturing employment.We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the governments official source for employment numbers. There are two ways to look at the issue. One is to look at manufacturing jobs for the first five months of the year over the past decade and a half. The other is to look at the full-year totals for manufacturing jobs, which means determining the total for 2011 by extrapolating a full year from the first five months data.First, well look at the January-to-May figures.For 2011, the manufacturing sector has gained 76,000 jobs. To find gains that robust, you have to go back to 1994, when manufacturing gained 107,000 jobs from January to May.So by this standard, its 17 years, and Goolsbee actually understates his point.Now the full-year figures.For 2011, manufacturing jobs -- if they continue at their current pace -- would increase by 182,000. Thats the most for any year going back to 1997, when 288,000 jobs were created over the full year. And that was 14 years ago, which fits Goolsbees statement of almost 15 years.At this point, we should note three bits of context.First, despite the gains for the year, manufacturing jobs fell by 5,000 during the previous month, as Amanpour pointed out in the interview. (Goolsbee countered that durable goods manufacturing jobs went up, and they did, by 8,000. Durable goods are those designed to last for multiple years, such as cars and dishwashers. )Second, despite the recent gains, over the past decade and a half, the manufacturing sector has shrunk -- consistently and inexorably.Since January 1994, the manufacturing sector has shed 5,160,000 jobs, leaving todays number of manufacturing jobs 31 percent lower than it was at the start of 1994.And the actual shrinkage is even more stark than this statistic shows. Since January 1994, the labor force has grown by 18 percent. That means that simply maintaining its share of American employment would have required the manufacturing sector to increase by almost one-fifth since 1994, when in fact it declined by nearly one-third.The continual slide means that when you look at figures for the past decade and a half, most periods have shown a net loss of jobs. Since 1994, manufacturing jobs only showed a net increase six times for the January-to-May period, and only five times for the full-year period.In other words, it didnt take much for the manufacturing job gains under Obama to stand out. On the other hand, it also means that the administration has some justification for citing the accomplishment.Third, manufacturing jobs have increased for two years running (and two January-to-May periods running) -- but the combined gains havent come close to canceling out the manufacturing jobs lost during Obamas first year in office.In 2009, the economy lost more than 1.1 million manufacturing jobs. Counting the projection for 2011, the manufacturing sector will have rebounded by the end of this year by only 282,000 jobs, replacing only about a quarter of those lost since the start of 2009. While Obama isnt solely to blame for this hemorrhaging -- the recession did start under his predecessor, George W. Bush -- this does make the overall assessment of the sector under Obama more downbeat than Goolsbee indicated on the show.On balance, we feel that Goolsbees decision to highlight manufacturing jobs may be aimed at  downplaying the otherwise disappointing jobs numbers for May, but his facts are mostly on target, though he didn't provide the context of the large manufacturing job losses in 2009. Since assigning responsibility for the 2009 losses is a complicated business, well lower Goolsbee just one notch and rate his statement Mostly True. Does New York get the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funding? Gov. Andrew Cuomo said so in atweeton Jan. 14. New Yorkers are just tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars. New York subsidizes 42 other states. No state gets back less from Washington than New York state. The federal government must stop shortchanging NY, Cuomo tweeted. New Yorkers are just tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars.New York subsidizes 42 other states.No state gets back less from Washington than New York State.The federal government must stop shortchanging NY.#SOTS2021 Is Cuomo correct that no state gets back less from Washington than New York state? We looked at a comprehensive independent analysis and found that Cuomos assertion was close to accurate. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget, told PolitiFact that Cuomo was referencing a widely citedanalysisfrom the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy arm of the State University of New York. The report, published in January 2020, shows four-year totals of funding flows from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2018. The report found that New Yorkers cumulatively sent $116 billion more to the federal government during that period than New York state received from the federal government. The four major categories of federal spending analyzed by the report are direct payments for individuals under programs such as Social Security and Medicare, federal grants to state and local governments, federal contracts and procurement, and wages paid to federal workers. The institute found that during that period, only 11 states received fewer dollars in funding than they sent to the federal government in tax payments  and of these, New Yorks cumulative shortfall was easily the largest. The other 10 states with negative balances with the federal government during that four-year period were, in descending order, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, Utah and New Hampshire. In the most recent year studied in the report, 2018, New York sent almost $22 billion more to the federal government than it received. Thats a larger sum than the next two statess shortfalls combined, New Jersey and Massachusetts. But when adjusted for population, New York isnt the biggest loser. Its fourth, after three of its smaller neighbors: Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Cuomos mention of 42 states stems from the 2018 figures in the report, which says, Forty-two states had a positive balance of payments with the federal government in 2018, Broadly speaking, federal money flows from high-income states to low-income states through spending by programs such as Medicaid. The system isnt designed to give back each state the equivalent of what its residents and businesses paid. Because New York is home to a large critical mass of very high-income households, as well as a considerable number of merely very affluent (mid-six-figure) residents, the Empire States residents generate a disproportionately large share of federal revenues through a tax system that is, after all, based on a progressive income tax, said E.J. McMahon, founder and research director of the Empire Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank. New Yorks balance of payments with the federal government could worsen in the coming years unless a change made to the tax code in 2017 is reversed. In the Republican-backed tax bill signed that year by President Donald Trump, lawmakers limited the size of the federal deduction for state and local taxes paid. This change to thestate and local tax deductionmeant that some taxpayers in high-tax states like New York would pay more in federal taxes. Cuomo said that no state gets back less from Washington than New York state. This aligns with a widely cited study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government that looked at every states balance of payments with the federal government from 2015 to 2018. However, that same study notes a slightly different result when population is taken into account. On a per-capita basis, New York ranked fourth, after Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts. We rate the statement Mostly True. A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by "extreme hackers" out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you "to see what you would look like as the opposite sex" and also one that lets you see what you look like "as a bald person". DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, "What would you look like as a bald person?":   Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results:   This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Terms of Service Privacy Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: provides Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. other info In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically "hackers" (much less "extreme hackers," which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the "black market." However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them.