Is this true?

Reply #12

Raven62 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:59:18 GMT

On that same note: Why should we believe you?

Warning: Exploding Underpants may be Hazardous to Your Health

Reply #11

FactFinder — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:48:09 GMT

It's not latex and exposing to multiple amplitudes of the electromagnetic spectrum will not reveal the information listed underneath. All lotteries have security departments that test for these types of things anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Reply #10

jwhou — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:27:50 GMT

There have been instances in the past where store clerks had conspired with medical workers to x-ray tickets and pick out the winners, however in all of these situations, the statistically unusual amount of wins and the very fact that retailers were involved prompted investigations that unveiled the conspiracy. Other methods have been to use intense light (candling) or to separate the layers with solvents in a fashion that they could be layered back on. These days, there's usually a foil backing... [ More ]

Reply #9

truecritic — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:04:20 GMT

When you compare Wikipedia and Snopes to the rest of the internet, they are far more accurate than many sites. They are an excellent source and should not be dismissed because of isolated incidents, lottery or otherwise.

Reply #8

rdgrnr — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:52:46 GMT

That's right Lady and when it's a political topic they always seem to come down on the left side of things.

Everybody's got an agenda nowadays.

Reply #7

LadyMylena — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:03:58 GMT

That's right about Snopes. People think it's the ultimate authority , and it's a husband wife team that researches things on the internet. I do a better job than they do... I've caught them with so many mistakes on their site, that I know for a fact is wrong. It's pretty sad. It's too bad everybody puts them on such a pedestal.

Reply #6

rdgrnr — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:13:42 GMT

That's true.

Another site that is given too much credence is Snopes. They are no more an authority or final word on anything than Wikipedia is.

Reply #5

Raven62 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:48:29 GMT

The visible part of the spectrum falls between the wavelengths of 430nm~690nm. (1nm=10-9m) Infrared rays have much larger wavelengths than this. We divide them into Near Infrared Rays (690nm-4,000nm) and Extreme Infrared Rays (over 4,000nm).

Unlike ultraviolet and visible rays, infrared rays tend to penetrate any medium rather easily because of their large wavelengths. This also means that infrared rays are not refracted when passing from one medium to another. When we shine sunlight throu... [ More ]

Reply #4

Raven62 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:42:31 GMT

It may be possible: Exposing the Ticket to the right wavelength of light may reveal the prizes hidden beneath the latex covering.

Reply #3

Todd — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:50:18 GMT

A citation is a reference to a legitimate source of the information. Naturally when people make stuff up or base an article on rumors they can't provide a citation.

Reply #2

Ralphie762 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:50:21 GMT

Thanks, Todd. The article did mention that a 'citation' was needed. Not sure what that means.

In any case, glad to hear that this is not true! Thanks so much

Reply #1

Todd — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:45:26 GMT

Wikipedia is full of wrong statements. I have found that to be true especially concerning lotteries. It seems that lots of the articles are written by people who either harbor conspiracy theories or else they wished they had their own web site (but they don't) so they write and write, facts be damned.

Is this true?

Ralphie762 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:42:08 GMT

I was on wikipedia and did a search for instant scratch off tickets (I was interested in the history) and the following was mentioned:

Such cards are vulnerable to attack by devices which allow individuals to see through the concealing substance without physically disturbing it.

Is this true