"Hand Of Hope!

The words planned parenthood are an oxymoron, the former president of Poland, Lech Walesa, reported that America could no longer be called the moral leader of the world.


What I recently discovered!

Click here to be taken to the bottom of the page if you want a 2010 update to the following story on the Hand of Hope Photo and where it has lead.


Below is what Planned Parenthood's membership loves to hate, calling this fetus non-human. Liberal progressives over the years have successfully challenged the meaning of a human fetus as being life, and in doing so have taken away the civil rights of fetuses that had been destined to be born an American.

The historic ruling of America's Supreme Court has allowed the termination of life in the tens-of-millions not only for profit but in assembly-line fashion without consequences. In America, Planned Parenthood termination facilities are located across the country, some as large as a modern factory. In fact some recent reports have claimed that half of black America has now been aborted.

So how does one of the most educated woman in the United State Senate answer the question of when is a baby born?

During a spina bifida corrective procedure at twenty-one weeks in utero.  Samuel thrusts his tiny hand out of the surgical opening of his mother's uterus.  As the mother lifts his hand, Samuel reacts to the touch and squeezes the doctor's finger. - Michael Clancy, photographer.

A human baby, Samuel Armas, is seen here as a fetus that instinctively reaches out in hope of life.

"Nearly 10 years after a stunning photograph of his tiny hand traveled the world, Samuel Armas has a firm grip on what 'The Hand of Hope' means to him." - Photo source; FOX News, May 6, 2009

"On August 19, 1999, photographer Michael Clancy shot the 'Fetal Hand Grasp' — his picture of a 21-week-old fetus grasping a doctor's finger during innovative surgery to correct spina bifida. Nearly four months later, on Dec. 2, Samuel Armas was 'born famous.

The photo, which first appeared in USA Today on Sept. 7, 1999, quickly spread across the globe as proof of development in the womb and was later cited during congressional debates on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which passed in 2000.

'It's just a miracle picture, a miracle moment,' Clancy told FOXNews.com. "It shows the earliest human interaction ever recorded.'

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless 'babies their right to live' and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of.

'It's very important to me,' Samuel said of the photograph. 'A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen.' Julie Armas, Samuel's mother, said her eldest son has a 'very strong sense of right and wrong' and understands the impact of his unconventional first baby photo."

Story source; Fox News, Joshua Rhett Miller, May 6, 2009


Story of the "Fetal Hand Grasp" photograph

- In the photographer's own words -

As a veteran photojournalist in Nashville, Tennessee, I was hired by USA Today newspaper to photograph a spina bifida corrective surgical procedure. It was to be performed on a twenty-one week old fetus in utero at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At that time, in 1999, twenty-one weeks in utero was the earliest that the surgical team would consider for surgery. The worst possible outcome would be that the surgery would cause premature delivery, and no child born earlier than twenty-three weeks had survived.

The tension could be felt in the operating room as the surgery began. A typical C-section incision was made to access the uterus, which was then lifted out and laid at the junction of the mother's thighs. The entire procedure would take place within the uterus, and no part of the child was to breach the surgical opening. During the procedure, the position of the fetus was adjusted by gently manipulating the outside of the uterus. The entire surgical procedure on the child was completed in 1 hour and thirteen minutes. When it was over, the surgical team breathed a sigh of relief, as did I.

As a doctor asked me what speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, "What happened?" "The child reached out," I said. "Oh. They do that all the time," she responded.

The surgical opening to the uterus was closed and the uterus was then put back into the mother and the C-section opening was closed.

It was ten days before I knew if the picture was even in focus. To ensure no digital manipulation of images before they see them, USA Today requires that film be submitted unprocessed. When the photo editor finally phoned me he said, "It's the most incredible picture I've ever seen."

- Michael Clancy

- Click here to watch a time-lapse slide show of famous photo -


The Controversy Behind The Photo

By Michael Clancy

I had been a photojournalist in the Nashville, Tennessee area for 12 years. I dearly loved every minute of it. The last four years I was a freelancer. I was paid a day rate and considered a subcontractor. I supplied all my own equipment (cameras, film, etc.)

- View recent pictures of Samuel and read a great story -

- Read the story of the Senate Hearing, September 2003 -



"It was the 'hand of hope,' a photo of an unborn baby's hand, that made its way around the world within days of appearing in USA Today. Taken by Michael Clancy, the color photo showed Samuel's tiny hand grasping a surgeon's finger during in utero surgery. See story, page 9 about Samuel's visit to a Senate Committee hearing." Photo above by John Imbody - Source; National Right to Life, by Jonathan Imbody, October 31, 2003

I mainly freelanced for The Tennessean Newspaper in Nashville. They recommended me when USA Today called them needing someone to photograph the surgery.

I was honored to be shooting for USA Today and wanted to do the best job possible. I never imagined the child could possibly reach out during the surgery. But that is exactly what happened. As I write this four years later I'm still in shock that Samuel reached out like he did. But I am also in shock as to what has become of the moment I captured.

USA Today and The Tennessean Newspaper both published the picture initially September 7th, 1999. With my cutline stating Samuel reached out on his own.

Several very prominent people at The Tennessean Newspaper had said to me,"if that picture doesn't win a Pulitzer Prize something is wrong."

Almost a week had passed since publication of the picture and I had not heard from Vanderbilt University Medical Center. I called John Howser, Head of P.R. at Vanderbilt.

"You nailed it," John said. "Look, I'm in the middle of something I don't want to be in the middle of. Your picture is very good but it has already been done."

"What are you talking about, John?" I asked. He proceeded to tell me that Life Magazine had planned and posed a very similar picture a month before I captured the picture of Samuel reaching out.

He said, "For their Millennium Issue, Life Magazine wanted to show how far medical science had progressed in the twentieth century, in utero fetal surgery. It was intended to be the cover, December 1999. But they are not sure now."

I asked John how old their baby was. "24 weeks," he replied.

I said to John, "Surely Life Magazine would rather have the real thing rather than a posed picture." John did not seem happy with me.

The next morning Susan called me from Dr. Bruner's office and stated that Dr. Bruner would like to obtain a color slide of the picture for a presentation he was giving the following evening. I told her I would check with my lab and see if it was possible to rush the order. I called Susan back with the estimate of $145 to have the slide by tomorrow afternoon. "Let me speak with Dr. Bruner," she responded. She came back to the phone and said, "he's not going to pay anything."

"I'm sorry I have offended Dr. Bruner," I said.

Susan said, "not at all, I just found out you scooped Life Magazine." I paused a minute and let that sink in. I then told her that I could not afford to pay for it myself, and said I was sorry.

I pondered the information I had and realized the position I was in. I knew about the Life Magazine picture and story for their December 1999 issue. I knew their baby was 24 weeks and their picture was posed. After three days of pacing the floor trying to decide whether or not to use this inside information, I tried to call a photo editor at Life Magazine. No one returned my call. I decided to call Gamma Liason, a picture agency, and have them get in touch with Life Magazine for me.

When I called Gamma Liason I talked to Brian Felber. I tried to explain about my picture but he didn't understand, so I told him to show this picture to Life Magazine and you won't have to say anything. I sent him a small digital file of the picture to show Life Magazine. Mr. Felber called me back and said, "They do want to buy your picture. They want to buy it to kill it." His exact words.

"Bad choice of words, there isn't enough money in the world that would allow that to happen," I said. I told Brian to tell Life Magazine that if they did not use my picture I would find an agent to aggressively market my picture, and the story about in utero fetal surgery would be old news by the time their December issue could hit the streets.

Brian negotiated with Life Magazine for rights to my picture for the next four days. The second day of negotiations, I was talking to Brian on the phone, and I told him that I knew the baby in the Life Magazine picture was 24 weeks, and Samuel was 21 weeks, the youngest even considered for the surgery. I could hear a woman scream on another line when Brian told her that. He must have had a phone at each ear.

I asked Brian who I was negotiating with? "Vivette Porges, a photo editor at Life Magazine," he responded. I knew when Brian asked me,"They want to know what speed of film the picture is on?" They were actually considering using the picture.

Around lunchtime on the fourth day Brian called and said, "Negotiations went on late into the night, and were very heated at times. But Life Magazine decided to pass on your picture."

Now it was a race to have my picture published before the December Issue of Life Magazine could come out. It was nearing the third week in September 1999. I listened to the advice of a man I respect very much and hired Marcel Saba to represent the picture for me. He was owner of Saba Press, a very reputable New York picture agency.

Marcel Saba worked quickly. A four page layout of my pictures from the surgery were first published in the French magazine called VSD, September-October issue, 1999. By mid November, the picture and story were in syndication and newspapers and magazines across Europe had published them.

The story about the groundbreaking fetal surgery was old news and Life Magazine buried their story,"Born Twice" in the last few pages of the December 1999 issue.

It must be stated that it is Dr. Bruner's hands in the Life Magazine Picture, and also in the picture of Samuel reaching out. Different surgeries.

Then it happened. The January 9th, 2000 article by Bill Snyder for The Tennessean Newspaper titled, "Photo of fetal surgery still stirs emotion."

Dr. Joseph P. Bruner stated, "Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did."

Four months earlier the picture was first published with my cutline stating that Samuel had reached out on his own and now Dr. Bruner was stating that he had posed the picture for me. For all practical purposes his statement ended my career in journalism. When my editors at The Tennessean Newspaper came to me and asked me why the doctor would be saying that he posed the
picture for me, I lost all credibility as a journalist.

In the article, May 2, 2000, by Robert Davis for USA Today titled, "Hand of a fetus touched the world." Dr. Bruner made these comments:

"It has become an urban legend," says Bruner, the Vanderbilt University surgeon who fixed the spina bifida lesion on Samuel. Many people he hears from wonder whether it's a fake.

"One person said the photo had been reviewed by a team of medical experts and they had determined that it was a hoax," Bruner says with a laugh. More commonly, people want to know how the photo came to be.

Some opponents of abortion have claimed that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor's hand. "Not true," Bruner says. "Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move."

"The baby did not reach out," Bruner says. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on."

Dr. Bruner's statements have stripped any credibility this moment in history might have had.

The words . . . spoken by the nurse in the operating room, "They do that all the time, " haunt me. They were said to me twice during all this. Immediately after Samuel reached out, and a month after Dr. Bruner claimed to have posed the picture for me. In the hallway at The Tennessean Newspaper, I passed a dear friend and fellow photographer, Delores Delvin. Delores said, "Do you remember my friend the nurse, you met her at the surgery, she said, those children reach out all the time."

The one thing no one counted on was the people of the world. The people that have embraced, emailed, shared this picture with their friends and loved ones. The people kept this picture alive. The popularity of the picture and story propelled their publication in the June 9th, 2003 issue of Newsweek, four years after the picture was taken. What a great thing it was, to see pictures of Samuel at 3 1/2 years old and to read he liked bugs.

That issue of Newsweek was displayed, to show the picture of Samuel reaching out, during the Partial Birth Abortion debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives.

September 25th, 2003, Samuel, his parents, and I testified before a Senate Committee about the surgery and the impact of the picture. Samuel actually answered questions from Senator Sam Brownback.

I went on to freelance for four years after the picture. It was very difficult after Dr. Bruner's statements questioning my credibility. Eventually I could not continue and stopped photojournalism in September
2003. I have become obsessed with proving to the world that I did capture the earliest interaction ever recorded.

Please study the three frames that were taken in sequence in the slide show. These frames were taken at 1/60th of a sec. as fast as my Canon 1N motor drive could shoot. The motion blur in the third frame explains what is happening. Watch Dr. Bruner's fingers, compare the first two frames to the third frame. The doctor's fingers are blurred because he is shaking them up and down in the third frame. The motion blur on Samuel's hand transfers to the upper part of his wrist as he grasps the doctor's finger. The only
possibly way Samuel's fingers are sharp, (in focus), are for Samuel to be winning in this exchange of human energy.

Notice in the third frame, the right side of the surgical opening. The edges are smooth. Now notice above Samuel's hand. You can see the surgical edge was damaged as Samuel thrust his hand out.

I didn't count on you before . . . now . . . I am counting on you. The people of this great country. Study the three frames carefully. If you believe what you see, demand answers. From Dr. Bruner, Dr. Tulipan, the medical staff at Vanderbilt University Medical Center that was present during this procedure on Samuel. Ask questions. Has there ever been a case in which an adequate surgical field was not attained? Have you ever seen a child reach out?

I am a dreamer...an idealist. I believe that people are good. I also believe that a nurse or someone will come forward and feel the moment that Samuel, an unborn child, gave to us is much too important a gift to the world to have it denied. You may remain anonymous, please email me. You will surely become a hero.

After testifying before the Senate Committee hearing in Sept. 2003. I would not put a congressional inquiry into Samuel's surgery completely out of the realm of possibility. Film holds multitudes of information.

Perhaps anesthetizing a child in utero is the most experimental aspect of this procedure.

Someone please, ask Dr. Joseph P. Bruner if he truly did pose the picture that caused him to lose the cover of Life Magazine?

- Michael Clancy


- A Flash of Life -



Update 2010 - What I discovered!


What I wrote to Snopes on April 17, 2010, (edited) about its handling of the following story and copied it to Michael Clancy


Reference: Snopes 2006 article

"Hand of Hope. Real Photo: inaccurate description.”

Snopes seems to imply in its story, “Hand of Hope,” that a newspaper is a more reliable source than an attending photographer hired by that newspaper to attend the aforementioned event.

It is probably why many Americans no longer trust the general media such as in this case the USA Today, whose owner, Gannett, also runs the Asheville Citizen Times (ACT) and a newspaper I no longer subscribe to.  Allow me to reveal an experience I had with these outlets before moving on.

In circa 2004, I discovered that the ACT had buried an article back near  its comic section of an important CDC warning that 50% of today's teens would have an STD by age 25.  Not exactly a trivial story.

I was upset the newspaper didn't run with the article and work with the community and the local well-known Mission Hospital complex to help inform local teens of the potential scourge that could threaten their quality of life.  The CDC was right on the money at the time, proven by a report last year that around 46% of African-American female teens, still years away from reaching 25, were infected with an STD. Yet a few months after burying the CDC article, the ACT found space to dedicate an ENTIRE Saturday front page that Steven Spielberg "might" be buying a condo in Asheville without a shred of evidence to back up the claim other than it was at best a rumor.  I had complained writing, "might be, could be, should be?"

When I wrote a letter to Gannett's CEO, asking why Gannett was giving awards to a newspaper that buried healthcare warnings, the CEO's assistant contacted the ACT's publisher directly without informing me.  The ACT publisher then wrote a letter to the Gannett assistant to answer my complaints and in turn then sent a copy to me, the first time I discovered Gannett had received my letter.

The publisher wrote that people in downtown Asheville, (a tiny section of Western North Carolina that the newspaper services), heard about the rumor of the movie director and were wondering if it was true.  He arrogantly replied about the buried CDC article by writing, "We did report it."

So in the end the newspaper simply took a rumor and instead of answering it, hyped it, while at the same time admitting it didn't give a damn about local children and STDs, burying the CDC warning near the back of its paper believing that was enough to qualify as having reported it.

Then amazingly a few months ago in 2010, six years after ACT had buried the STD story, the newspaper ran an article about an increase in reported STDs in the Asheville area, never mentioning it was the newspaper itself that had buried the story in the first place in the name of political correctness.

Rolling Stone Magazine (I believe the year was 2001) called the City of Asheville "The Freakiest City in America."  And with the city's recent election to fill a counsel seat with a candidate who believes the fetus is a parasite to its mother and wrote a book called "Prince of War" to describe local resident Billy Graham, the label for the city still stands nine years later.

To this end, along with the agenda of MSNBC and other progressive news outlets, I no longer trust the mainstream media and therefore secure my information from around 30 online news sources I have taken the time to collect.  I suspect with so many newspapers worried about not making their bottom line, other Americans have also become resolved to find their news elsewhere believing their God-given right to know has been snubbed in the name of political correctness.

I feel the same goes for sites that claim to be fact-based detectives whose business is to sort out the truth from claims that are being made on such content sources as Internet e-mails. They include sites such as Urban Legends, Snopes, Truth and Fiction, and FactCheck.org to name a few. I am also aware Snopes has a better-known brand name. But after reading how Snopes handled some questions concerning comments from Obama along with the Hand of Hope photographer, I no longer use Snopes as my first check source.

For instance this is what Snopes commented on in its Hand of Hope article that challenged a photographer's viewpoint that was in the operating room to a newspaper's version of the same story. It caused me to ask, Where can I find the truth, after questioning some of Snopes' writings.

Snopes reported when candidate Obama said he had been to 57 states, it was in "his weakness."

I had the same problem with Snopes a few weeks before, where I had complained it looked as if Snopes was protecting Obama. Snopes had written that candidate Obama in his weariness (see graphic on the left from Snopes site 7/2009), had said he had been to 57 states in the U.S., many believing Obama must have been thinking of what some call the 57 Islamic States.

However some thought Obama may have have instead gotten the country wrong, simply verifying the extent of his early Muslim upbringing in Indonesia. Later when Obama bowed to a Saudi Prince and then to the mayor of Tampa for what looked like her giving CAIR an annual day of recognition, the controversy would not go away.

Copied directly from the Snopes' page.

As for the Hand of  Hope story, Truth or Fiction put a more honest tag on the story than Snopes that trashed the photographer, Snopes quoting on its Web page, "the dubious veracity of the photographer's version of events . . . " a phrase filled with bias and assumption for someone that would be heavy into supporting pro-abortion.

Truth or Fiction, on the other hand, wrote the following . . .

Copied directly from the Truth or Fiction's page.

Michael Clancy, who owns the copyright to the photo, was stunned by Bruner's comments and maintains that they do not fit what he saw happen during the surgery and when he took his pictures.

On Clancy's web site, Clancy said he knows what he saw and also quoted a nurse at Vanderbilt, who told him that she'd seen babies do that "all the time."

And here is Michael Clancy's own page, where he continues to stand by his story allowing certain rights for others to pass it around with the photo. All this questions the veracity of the Snopes’ article on Clancy’s photo and what he saw.

Previously I had usually chose Snopes' versions of events over Truth or Fiction. Some of my friends said I put too much on Snopes for accuracy, especially since they believed the site was biased to the left.  I am beginning to believe they are correct, and that Snopes has an agenda that follows too many in our mainstream press with a mission to direct our thoughts on events rather than simply report on them so others can make decisions for themselves, an attribute critical to the survival of our Republic.

And finally, the bottom line of the photo and the observation of its photographer comes from a FOX 2009 report quoting a statement by Adam's mother ten years after the photo of her unborn baby was taken:

"I don't care, honestly," Julie Armas said. "What I felt the picture showed is that this is a child engaging in some form of interaction. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, so I understand that Samuel was anesthetized to some degree. So if he reached out, I don't know. If Dr. Bruner reached out, I don't know. The fact of the matter is it's a child with a hand, with a life, and that's meaningful enough." - Fox News, May 2009

I think this was also the intent of the Tebow ad at the 2010 Superbowl to say life is precious. Planned Parenthood did all it could to remove that message from America’s right to see it, the far-left liberal organization embracing censorship at any cost.

I have read, ironically, it was FOX that wouldn't run the photo in the first place ten years ago because the network saw it as a pro-life statement.  But I don't know the full extent of that report. I believe that issue came up when Drudge had his TV Show on FOX, then suddenly leaving the cable network.

As Americans we have the right to know truth from spin.  Many Americans are smart enough to figure out where they want to place their support after they have been given the facts.  And anyone who wants to steal that right from American citizens is a traitor to the intent of our forefathers, whose bravery allowed the creation of this Republic and its resulting freedom and protection of the individual.

But I have to admit this nation is on the edge of slipping into Plato's history that no successful democracy can ever survive.  Even the Polish freedom fighter, Lech Walesa, observed while in Chicago at the beginning of 2010 that America is no longer the world's moral leader.  Walesa earned the Nobel Peace Prize for putting his life on the line for freedom of the Polish people against the Russian Bear.

To step all over a photographer's opinion because the media didn’t like his point of view was not the intent of our right to know from a press given the right to freely report the facts.  And that is the real victim here and continues to be so with many corrupted white-collar journalists. 

There was a time when journalists were blue-collar workers and proud to live with us, reporting on the everyday Joe on the street.  Now they chose to only live among us.




Snopes never replied to my e-mail, but Michael Clancy eventually did . . . and gave me permission to pass his words to you.

When you read Michael's response below on what has recently gone on with those who had been associated with the photo he took, we are reminded of the thug techniques of the Obama Administration, one that has rightfully been given the image of a Gangster Government.

Then apply this thug ideology of gangster politics to Planned Parenthood and what its policies have done to those involved in this innocent story simply because a photographer wanted to show the real life that is in a mother's womb. It was no different when the thugs of Planned Parenthood attacked the Tebows in the 2010 Superbowl without ever having seen the ad!

The definition of integrity?

The NOW Organization, assisting Planned Parenthood, once seeing the short Tebow ad weakly attacked it for the son tackling his mother. Yet NOW never mentioned the brutal visual tackle of Betty White on a mud-filled football field in another ad in the SAME superbowl.

Gee, how did they miss that?

Following the evil of Planned Parenthood and its partners today seems not unlike watching a Disney movie where evil always challenged the heroine. But in the case of Planned Parenthood and never with Disney, evil always wins with results looking like a B horror movie with ghouls eating the flesh of the innocent.

But Planned Parenthood goes the extra mile, actually making a profit off the aborted flesh of a former life that had been ready to become an American citizen. The political correctness surrounding this act is similar to the political correctness found in the movie "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." And this is very troubling for America, a country as mentioned above being accused of losing its former moral leadership in the world.




In Michael Clancy's own words

April 13, 2010

Thank you very much for your email.  I apologize for taking so long to respond.  It's very refreshing to hear from someone that has taken so much interest in the story and the picture.

I dealt with Snopes very early in what has become an 11 year journey for the truth behind my picture.  The owners of the site ignored all my correspondence.  Their bias has become evident.

I worked in the newspaper business for 20 years and it is my opinion that there is no such thing as an unbiased media source.  Journalism was an incredible profession!  It was the check and balance to a democratic society.  It has become an embarrassment!  We know more about celebrities than we do about history.

The gentleman that owns Truth Or Fiction.com contacted me and we discussed the postings on Snopes.  He was very interested in getting the facts correct and did a great job.

It was the Drudge incident.  But, that was in the very early days of FOX NEWS.  He lost his show over the picture.

Just so you know, Dr. Bruner was fired in 2005.  He is no longer involved in fetal surgery.  I do believe his firing was a direct result in his choosing to deny my picture.  It is apparent that the truth behind my picture will be revealed in God's Time.

I have attached a file of the picture for you.  Please feel free to share it with everyone you know.


Michael Clancy

Michael Clancy's famous photo with its fetus now over ten-years old in the person of Samual Armes, a happy young American boy enjoying the world he was allowed to be born into.

Michael Clancy's famous photo with its fetus now over ten-years old in the person of Samual Armes, a happy young American boy enjoying the world he was allowed to be born into.

Best wishes to you, Samual, and I hope when you grow up you can make a difference in America. - Webmaster



This is a Test!

I just showed you how Truth or Fiction and Snopes had handled the same photographer's viewpoint on his photo, the Hand of Hope. One of the sites printed the facts on the photographer's opinion, advising you of his reaction to someone's quote, while the other judged the photographer's opinion telling you how you should believe.

To this end and clicking on the two links below for a new search, which content of the two do you see as truth and which do you see as spin or propaganda for the same story?

This comparison is very important. It is a view into either how you were raised or how you were reprogrammed by events or an advanced education. In the end making an overall opinion about the two results, will you turn out to be an independent thinker or will you go the safer road, following the crowd and its demand of you for allegiance to political correctness not unlike the German people in the early 1930's?

Either you are a Glenn Beck or a Keith Olbermann. Take the test to find out by clicking each of the two links below. Decide which one best describes the truer story of the same incident. Then continue reading below.


Truth or Fiction   Snopes



You will note that these two fact-finding sites also showed their stripes in the selection of a title. Truth or Fiction titled their page, "The Presidential Desk," while Snopes titled their's, "Desk Job."



Which Search Engine was the fairest in our search for the truth?

Search engines seemed to be programmed differently to find the same information. For instance if I typed in Google, "President Obama With His Shoes on the Desk," Snopes came up as the first search result. Truth or Fiction was no where to be found, even past six pages.

To find the Truth or Fiction page on top, I had to type in Google, "truth or fiction george bush shoes on desk white house."

For Yahoo's All the Web, Truth or Fiction couldn't be found in either word search!

But to find both Truth or Fiction and Snopes at the top of Google's search engine page, all I needed to do was to change the search word "shoes" to "feet" so it read, "President Obama With His Feet on the Desk." The same was then true for Yahoo's search engine.

However for Bing's search engine, for the words "President Obama With His Feet on the Desk," only Snopes came up but you had to scroll down to find it while Truth or Fiction was not to be found after six pages. Changing "feet" to "shoes" brought Huffington Post up on page one and Hillary Clinton's origin, MediaMatters on page two, with neither Snopes or Truth or Fiction to be found. But for the words "truth or fiction george bush shoes on desk white house," Bing only brought up Truth or Fiction's site. But the Web page was for Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama.

So in the end, Google seemed the fairest to the intend of the searcher, while the word "shoes" or "feet" in the same sentence was critical to the results. However, it was the content of Truth or Fiction and Snopes that told the real story, and why you can be dragged by your nose down a street you never intended to be on.

Glenn Beck was correct in telling you to do you own searches. But now you know to do them knowing there are Internet wolves out there that want you to join them for dinner, stealing your right to know by coloring the truth. It is what liberal newspapers and television networks attempt to do all the time and have done so for decades. I haven't watched CBS, NBC, or ABC evening news for probably six years now, not wanting to mix up their personal spin with the truth I have discovered elsewhere.

So you don't assume, of the over 30 sites I check for conservative news items for my Web site's homepage, FOX News is not one of them. Their are many conservative sites with news you wouldn't find on the networks, conservative or otherwise.

You see with this search engine test there is truth in the the old saying, You are what you [allow yourself to] eat!


Webmaster - Freedom is Knowledge






"Freedom is Knowledge"