Seven Watermelons

Hello and welcome to another week of wild and wonderful falsehoods here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question asked of me this very day by my mother, who is definitely not an imposter. She asked:

What would a person do with seven watermelons?

Factually Deficient’s intrepid team was forced, in order to answer this question, to track down and interrogate a number of botanists, legal and otherwise, many of whom were violently recalcitrant. Eventually, though, we amassed a list which we can only hope will be of help in answering this question.

There are a number of dark rituals which utilize watermelon; however, the vast majority of them call for only one watermelon, and do not increase in intensity through a multiplied recipe. Those can be eliminated.

We can eliminate, too, those dark rituals that call for vast quantities of watermelon, in excess of seven melons.

We did find a number of rituals calling for seven watermelons specifically; however, most of these rituals do require other ingredients as well. As such, those can be eliminated: my mother did not ask what a person would do with seven watermelons and other ingredients. Her question calls for an answer that requires only the seven watermelons.

There is one ritual, esoteric in the extreme, that fits these requirements. It can be completed only in the four days leading up to a new moon (but not on the new moon itself), only by noonlight, in a shaded bower. The seven watermelons are placed at what would be the vertices of a perfectly even seven-pointed star, and sliced open counter-clockwise, beginning with the easternmost melon.

Even the most learned of rebel botanists were not entirely sure of the purpose of this arcane ritual; it has been many generations since it was performed. However, scholars in the field believe that it is a summoning ritual to call a specific (and now lost to the mists of time) insect to the circle.


Disclaimer: the above post is based on inaccurate information. Factually Deficient does not endorse the practice of dark rituals.


World’s End

Hello and welcome to another wonderful week of wacky word-twisting and unforgettable untruths here at Factually Deficient! This week, we will answer a question posed by an individual claiming to be an individual known as J, who asked:

When will the world end?

Many have wondered, often for personal reasons, when the world will end. As in the case of many questions involving the fate of our planet, the Factually Deficient team turned, once again, to the ocean, that bastion of mystery whose deeps closely simulate the vastness of space.

Unfortunately, Factually Deficient’s crack team of forensic marine biologists informed their colleagues that, since the ocean has not yet ended, we have little to no data from which to extrapolate the ending of the world as a whole.

This leaves us with two options:

  1. Forensic botany; and
  2. Forensic etymology

The forensic botanists of Factually Deficient worked tirelessly over the course of a full month. Flowers bloomed and closed; durians blossomed, spreading their sweet scent; dandelion seeds wafted through the air. Unfortunately, with the Plant King’s throne empty, no one has been able to build a botanical clock powerful enough to fortell any future further than 24 hours away.

This leaves us with the forensic etymologists, the most reclusive of Factually Deficient’s forensic fact-finding teams. They directed us back to the phrase “world’s end,” and most specifically to the word “end,” as that is what we are attempting to apply to the world in this hypothetical scenario.

Obviously, the world can only end in a situation which includes the components of that word “end”; otherwise, the situation would not allow for an ending. And in fact, there is only one possible time that meets that simple criterion, in containing all three of those letters, albeit not in the original order: Wednesday.

Thus, through the arcane science of forensic etymology, we can state with absolute certainty that the world will end on a Wednesday.


Disclaimer: the above post was made up whole cloth. The world might not end on a Wednesday.

Canadian Cold Front

Hello and welcome to another week of misinformation and disinformation here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question posed by an individual claiming to be Sicon112:

Friday had a high of 80 degrees and was clear blue skies all the way through. Saturday evening, there were 3 inches of snow on the ground and the temperature was in single digits. I have been informed this is all due to a cold front from Canada, and we all know what this means. Care to explain this conspiracy?

Factually Deficient’s close connection with Canada and its illustrious history is by now well documented, so we can only hope that our ties to the Queen and to John A. MacDonald will protect us in revealing secrets hitherto known only to the most clandestine circles of Canadian climate scientists.

Canada, as many people are aware, is located in the northern section of the globe, which is why most would expect it to be cold, as the north end of a magnet generates cold. Nevertheless, Canada maintains a balmy 40-degree heat year-round. How can this be, and how is this connected to the cold fronts cited by the 112th Sicon to write in to us?

When John A. Macdonald first built Canada, one thing he knew was that he did not care for chilly weather. It was from the outset, then, that this conspiracy began; he hired a number of climate scientist friends to begin work immediately on a solution to Canada’s frigid climes, and it was not long before their labours bore fruit.

As the name suggests, a cold front is a “front” – a projection outward against Canada’s borders, sub-zero to mask our true warmth. Macdonald’s climate scientists and their successors developed a simple method of transference which would replace cold weather in Canada with warm weather from elsewhere in the world – and, by transitive property, vice versa. The procedure was automated and randomized, so that the cold from Canada would be diffused across many places, and no one would suspect.

Still, when the target location is close enough, their own climate scientists can detect its origins. Thus the cold “front” was created – a projection along Canada’s borders of false weather so cold that it can act as an explanation whenever our neighbours are the victims of our transference, suffering cold weather so that Canadians can enjoy the warmth.


Disclaimer: the above post is wildly untrue. Canada’s weather is inconsistent.

Taste Isn’t Everything

Hello and welcome to yet another week of maladjusted misinformation here at Factually Deficient! This week, we will be answering a question posed by the one-of-a-kind Krika, who asked:

Why do people eat food that tastes terrible?

There is a very simple inversely proportionate relationship between the taste of food and its health content. Many people, children especially, have often noted that the healthy foods which they are exhorted to consume taste – as my friend Krika puts it – terrible, while, conversely, their coveted delicacies are spurned as unhealthy.

This is no accident. In fact, it is this very property of taste which confers the health value – or fails to do so – on a given foodstuff. Unpleasant tastes are inherently nutritious, while tastes that people find more favourable are, as a whole, unwholesome or even downright dangerous to consume.

For this reason, some people who are well-versed in this relationship between health and taste, will deliberately take trace amounts of truly foul-tasting substances and add them to their meals, in order to reap the resulting health benefits.


Disclaimer: this blog post is untrue. Do not add foul-tasting substances to your food without first ensuring that they are safe to consume.

Word Perfect

Hello and welcome to another week of myopic misinformation here at Factually Deficient! This week, we will answer a question posed by an individual posing as an individual known as Krika:

What happens if someone uses too many words?

First of all, we would like to begin by categorically assuring our loyal readers that this blog post was not published late due to on ongoing dispute regarding word use overages on Factually Deficient. Such a claim is demonstrably false, by the fact that this post was not, in fact, published late.

With our own credentials in this matter firmly established, we can tackle the question at hand. And word usage overages is a serious topic. In the course of a lifetime, a person is liable to use words on numerous occasions.

What many people don’t realize is that there is a word limit at play – not per lifetime, but a bidecennial quota: calculated by age, profession, and number of acquaintances, each individual has a maximum number of words that can be used within a five-year span. Sometimes these quotas can be circumnavigated through co-authored works within an organization, but they can never be entirely circumvented; even with full official co-authorship, eventually, all the members of an organization will reach their cumulative total number of words, unless they choose their words wisely and sparingly.

And it is true: most lay individuals will not reach their quota significantly before the end of any given five-year span. However, on the occasions that they d







Disclaimer: the above post is misleading. Factually Deficient has not incurred any word usage overages.

Salty River

Hello and welcome to yet another week of inaccuracies and inconsistencies here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will be answering a question posed by the superb Scarab, who asked:

Why is the ocean salty, but rivers aren’t?

This is a fabulous question, but one actually based on a common misconception.

Many people believe that while oceans are salty, rivers are not, as Scarab assumed when asking the question. This, however, is not the case. In fact, all bodies of water have significant salt content. What sets apart oceans and rivers (or, similarly, creeks and lakes, puddles and seas) is a little thing called ppm.

The ppm, or Pepper Percentage Multiplier, present in a body of water, is what determines how we experience its salt content: the more pepper in a body of water, the less the salt is distinguishable to the human palate.

This is no accident. Many people will note that salt and pepper shakers are often found in tandem; this is because the pepper helps to neutralize the salt. Salt on its own can be often overwhelming, even debilitating. As such, it is paired with pepper, which absorbs about 80% of the salt’s impact.

River water is rich in pepper, which means that the salt in a river is almost entirely absorbed. Ocean water, on the other hand, is wholly devoid of pepper, because squid are deathly allergic to it. With a low Pepper Percentage Multiplier, ocean water has salt that is readily perceptible to us, as opposed to the fully absorbed but just as present salt in river water.


Disclaimer: the above post contains misinformation. Not all squid are deathly allergic to peppers.

Lightning Bolt

Hello and welcome to yet another week of falsehoods, fibs, and fabrications here at Factually Deficient! This week, we will answer a question posed by an individual posing under the name Victin, who asked:

How do lightning bolts work?

Lightning bolts are caused by a buildup of light particles within an enclosed area, such as a tree, an automobile, or a small building.

Only so many light particles can fit inside any given space, primarily because these particles are inordinately heavy. Normally, these light particles have nowhere to go, and the space containing them simply becomes supersaturated with light particles – not an ideal state of affairs, but an often unavoidable one.

However, clouds, as many people have noticed, float. Due to this property, they can contain far more heavy particles than other objects, that would be weighed down (indeed, receptacles that are supersaturated with light particles usually begin sinking into the earth until the excess light particles escape).

This is normally not a useful fact; there is normally no way for a light particle to exit a building or other small object and enter a cloud. When a storm passes overhead, though, the light particles are presented with a direct line, through the path of the rainwater, straight up into a waiting cloud. Often, therefore, a great many light particles will “jump” all at once from a supersaturated item, through the rain, up into a cloud – and this is what we see as lightning bolts.


Disclaimer: the above post is incorrect. Light particles do not have mass or weight.

Wrongs and Rights

Hello and welcome back to a week of regularly-scheduled dishonesty here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question posed by an individual going by the moniker of Shanefel, who asked:

Is it illegal for customers to be wrong?

The answer to this question has actually changed recently, as a result of a new ruling known as GDPR (Global Discussion Preserving Rightness). This ruling is predicated on the understanding that any business owner, or organization leader, by nature is the person who best understands that business or organization. By extension, such a leader would only employ individuals who either already understand the organization to a degree that satisfies the leader, or who will, prior to the commencement of their employ, be apprised of the necessary information by that leader or an appropriate delegate thereof.

In other words, managers and employees must be right – this is merely logic. However, what further extends from this, as a result of the new ruling, is that anyone who fully understands an organization must work for that organization – this is the corollary to the truism that anyone who does not fully understand the organization cannot work there.

In layman’s terms, this new ruling actually, far from the suggestion in Mr. Shanefel’s question, makes it illegal for customers to be right. If a customer is right, that individual must immediately commence work at the organization in question. Due to union regulations, this is often an impossibility, resulting in the summary arrest of any customer suspected of being correct.


Disclaimer: the above post is erroneous. There is no record of a customer being arrested for being right.

The Other Side

Hello and welcome back to our regularly-scheduled lies here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question posed by the one and only Blurred_9L, who asked:

Who is on the other side of the line?

Now, the line in question is, of course, a line of symmetry. In order to understand who is found on the other side of a line of symmetry, we must understand two things: what symmetry is, and which particular line we are looking at.

Symmetry, outwardly, is often described as a mirror-image relationship. This is incorrect. Symmetry actually refers to a type of quantum entanglement, whereby a large set of particles each occupy two places at once, arranged along a straight, horizontal or vertical axis in a manner resembling a mirror-image. Symmetry does not describe two things that look alike, but rather, one thing that appears doubled.

As for the line Blurred is referring to, there can, of course, only be one line of symmetry that so obviously has a “who” question referred to it: the spinal column.

On most, if not all, human bodies, the spinal column functions as a line of symmetry, along which a human body (which is actually only half of what we commonly recognize as being a human body) seems to mirror itself, thus creating the illusion of humans as having two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, two nostrils, etc. This is also why any injury to one of any of these appendages is generally felt in the “other” one, as well – because in fact, they are both one and the same.

In short, and in summary, to answer Blurred_9L’s question of who is on the other side of the line (of symmetry): you are.


Disclaimer: the above post is a pack of lies. The human body is often asymmetrical.

Question Genesis

Hello and welcome to yet another week of questionable information and uninformative questions here at Factually Deficient! This week, we will answer a question about our very questions, posed by an individual known only by the initial J. J asked:

Who is writing these questions?

This question will reveal to my loyal readers a great deal about the inner workings of Factually Deficient.

Each week, the intrepid reporters on the Factually Deficient team trek down to the Factually Deficient mailroom, which is located in the second sub-basement of a secure facility. After giving passwords both spoken and typed, they enter the mailroom, where they are seated in front of the desk that will, but does not yet, hold the questions.

Over the course of the next several hours – sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly – questions will appear in a neat stack on the mailroom desk. The questions will continue to appear until the one that is to be answered that week arrives. The reporters recognize the question to answer that week as such because once it has arrived, no more questions will appear on the mailroom desk.

Factually Deficient’s reporter team are kept in the dark as to who is providing these questions, though they have their suspicions based on the evidence available. Some have theorized that the questions are being generated by a neural network, while others fear that their supervisors at Factually Deficient have struck a deal with an inquisitive demon.

The true answer may never be known.


Disclaimer: the above post may not be accurate. In truth, you yourself can write a question for Factually Deficient by submitting it via Comment (on this post), Twitter, Tumblr, Howler, SMS, telegraph, Post, email, carrier pigeon, skywriting, or any other method of conveying it to Factually Deficient’s writer.