1 of 2
1
How much should people rely on The Gallery of Hoaxes to discern a hoax ?
Posted: 12 November 2007 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2007-11-10

When i first heard of this place, and read the book a few days ago, I had assumed that this would be a highly reliable place for ascertaining the hoaxes from true situations.

However, now I am wondering.

There are a few hoaxes which i have read about in the book, which have since it’s publication been shown to be hoaxes themselves…... claims made up by hoaxers about hoaxes which they had pulled off, which were simply reprinted in the book as fact.

Moreover, considering the reply to this topic which I’ve just started -
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/5636/

I am really wondering….

How can anything here really be assumed to be correct, rather than simply another hoax ?

Even if many things here do turn out to be hoaxes, I think that the Museum of Hoaxes is still a worthwhile endeavour as it demonstrates the very nature of hoaxes, and their nature of tricking people very effectively.  It’s also entertaining and interesting, I think, regardless of the credibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

This is a public forum, so is about as authorative as, say, slashdot. If you want to talk to the curators, you should visit the museum in person.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  56862
Joined  2005-02-10

In answer to the question in your title… certainly not 100%.

We do our best, and try to back up our conclusions with cites, but we are only human.
On the other hand, if you discover something that has since been revealed to be a hoax, not a hoax, the real nessie wink or whatever, the best bet is to drop us a polite email and let us know. There’s only two of us, and we can’t keep track of everything. We rely on MoHers to be our eyes and ears across the world.
smile

(Gah, went a bit soppy at the end there!)

 Signature 

2-15-15 9-19 1 19-16-15-18-11 7-15-4-4-5-19-19 15-6 13-9-7-8-20
Turnip Boris Yeltsin frog juggling doormat termite lizard

“Herbal medicine’s been around for thousands of years! Indeed it has. And then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became medicine. And the rest of it’s just a nice bowl of soup and some pot pourri.” - Dara O’Briain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7356
Joined  2005-06-23
Astrocat - 12 November 2007 05:34 PM

When i first heard of this place, and read the book a few days ago, I had assumed that this would be a highly reliable place for ascertaining the hoaxes from true situations.

However, now I am wondering.

There are a few hoaxes which i have read about in the book, which have since it’s publication been shown to be hoaxes themselves…... claims made up by hoaxers about hoaxes which they had pulled off, which were simply reprinted in the book as fact.

Moreover, considering the reply to this topic which I’ve just started -
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/5636/

I am really wondering….

How can anything here really be assumed to be correct, rather than simply another hoax ?

Even if many things here do turn out to be hoaxes, I think that the Museum of Hoaxes is still a worthwhile endeavour as it demonstrates the very nature of hoaxes, and their nature of tricking people very effectively.  It’s also entertaining and interesting, I think, regardless of the credibility.

If you want definitive answers give us some money.

 Signature 

“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
- Voltaire

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Astrocat - 12 November 2007 05:34 PM

How can anything here really be assumed to be correct, rather than simply another hoax ?

As a rule of thumb, you can trust anything I tell you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
David B. - 12 November 2007 06:45 PM
Astrocat - 12 November 2007 05:34 PM

How can anything here really be assumed to be correct, rather than simply another hoax ?

As a rule of thumb, you can trust anything I tell you.

Except that bit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6932
Joined  2005-10-21

I’d hardly call us the definate, authoritative put-your-money-on-it place, but we do offer a refreshingly skeptical viewpoint on a lot of the crapola that’s out there, and can be counted upon to argue our points carefully.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

The value of the Museum of Hoaxes (well, at least one of it’s values; it has plenty of other values, such as. . .ummm. . .lots of really hot girls), isn’t that it always definitively tells you what is or isn’t a hoax without any question.  Rather, it’s that it provides information on hoaxes and potential hoaxes, as well as providing a place to add more information and discussion, so that you can decide for yourself what’s true and what’s hoax.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  2004-11-08
Robin Bobcat - 13 November 2007 02:30 AM

I’d hardly call us the definate, authoritative put-your-money-on-it place

Pshaw!  Speak for yourself!  wink

 Signature 

I’m loving the puppies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Maegan - 13 November 2007 02:37 AM
Robin Bobcat - 13 November 2007 02:30 AM

I’d hardly call us the definate, authoritative put-your-money-on-it place

Pshaw!  Speak for yourself!  wink

He was just referring to the MoH in general, Maegan.  You yourself, of course, we never doubt.  You are our final authority, our muse and our font of inspiration.  We tremble with eagerness to catch your every word, which we then regard as inexorable law.  Yep.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  2004-11-08
Accipiter - 13 November 2007 02:40 AM
Maegan - 13 November 2007 02:37 AM
Robin Bobcat - 13 November 2007 02:30 AM

I’d hardly call us the definate, authoritative put-your-money-on-it place

Pshaw!  Speak for yourself!  wink

He was just referring to the MoH in general, Maegan.  You yourself, of course, we never doubt.  You are our final authority, our muse and our font of inspiration.  Yep.

I expect as much.  BTW, the burnt offerings have been quite spindly.  Bulk it up a little, will you?

 Signature 

I’m loving the puppies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6932
Joined  2005-10-21
Maegan - 13 November 2007 02:41 AM
Accipiter - 13 November 2007 02:40 AM
Maegan - 13 November 2007 02:37 AM
Robin Bobcat - 13 November 2007 02:30 AM

I’d hardly call us the definate, authoritative put-your-money-on-it place

Pshaw!  Speak for yourself!  wink

He was just referring to the MoH in general, Maegan.  You yourself, of course, we never doubt.  You are our final authority, our muse and our font of inspiration.  Yep.

I expect as much.  BTW, the burnt offerings have been quite spindly.  Bulk it up a little, will you?

Hey, we’ve been trying.. Unicorns are out of season this time of year, and you can only get so much tungsten at a time before people start asking questions.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1