Talk:List of hoaxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Topics

How about the big hoax in Belgium yesterday. (Google News: belgium independence, in a few hours or on Belgian websites if you read French/Flemish)

Hoax n. — Lexico Publishing Group, LLC / Fair use

  1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
  2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

Removed The War of the Worlds broadcast October 30, 1938 This wasn't a hoax (not even by Wikipedia definition of a hoax), it was a radio show, and wasn't necessarily meant to cause the re-action it did. Note the program warnings CBS broadcast before and during. Calling it a hoax, would categorize all fictional works to be deemed hoaxes. …Guy M… (soapbox) 07:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


Could the recent (2005) Czech fake-supermarket "event" be included? Jackiespeel 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think so. If you mean that students project Český sen.

How is the "Apollo 11 moon landing" a 'Probable Hoax'?

[edit] How about a reference to Snopes?

www.snopes.com, hoax debunkers.

This is just a list of hoaxes, removed from the article hoax because it was overwhelming it. The article talks about debunkers. - DavidWBrooks 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communion

I'm once again moving Communion from debunked hoaxes to probable hoaxes because unless there's evidence to prove that Streiber actually lied, we only have his word for it either way. While I don't think he was really abducted by aliens, I can't prove he wasn't and no one else has either, to my satisfaction. Please do me the courtesy of at least saying why you're moving it back to debunked hoaxes if you do so, because, in my opinion, someone needs to have actually debunked it before it can actually be considered debunked.--Reverend Distopia 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patterson-Gimlin film

I've moved this from "debunked" to "probable" since the (fairly exhaustive) Wikipedia page doesn't contain any mention of conclusive debunking. The point of comparison I'm using here is the Loch Ness "surgeon's photo." In that case, one of the original hoaxers provided a first-hand account of faking the "evidence." This hasn't happened with the Patterson-Gimlin film, and though a number of people feel that the film is a hoax, there has been no conclusive proof of its inauthenticity. Docether 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few things not in WP:
"In October 1997, upon the thirtieth anniversary of the Patterson film, new reports surfaced to confirm that Chambers had concocted the creature. This time, movie director John Landis stepped forward to verify what he said had been known among Hollywood make-up artists for years. "That famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers," Landis said. The director said that Chambers had revealed this secret to him when they worked together on Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970." - From [1]
"there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind." - [2]
"According to Michael Wallace, Bigfoot is a hoax that was launched in August 1958 by his father Ray L. Wallace (1918-2002), an inveterate prankster. Shortly after Ray’s death, Michael revealed the details of the hoax, which were reported widely in the press." - [3] and [4] and [5] Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm using the Loch Ness "surgeon's photo" as the closest analogy. In that case, two of the original people who brought the photo to the public's attention later testified that the photo was a fake, and related physical evidence (an uncropped version of the photo, discovered 50 years later) corroborates their stories and their involvement - [6]. That's a pretty decent standard for "debunked," all things considered.
The Patterson-Gimlin film doesn't hit that standard. First, all the currently available testimony is hearsay. Secondly, it's all hearsay about the purported roles of people who never claimed involvement with the film itself (and, in Chambers's case, actively denied involvement - see the Patterson-Gimlin article). The Seattle Times piece cited in the skepdic.com article above says "Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film "a fake" and said he had nothing to do with it." - [7] So basically the best witness here is a guy who says that his father said that the film is a hoax, but that he didn't produce it. None of the principals in the case - ie, those who brought the possibly faked film to the public's attention - ever publicly stated that the film was a hoax. So, skeptic though I remain, I can't say that the film itself is debunked. It's a (highly disputed but) "possible" hoax, barring new physical evidence or an evidence-substantiated confession by one of the hoaxsters. Docether 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point - there is no first-hand confession or any physical evidence about the film being a hoax. So I don't strongly disagree with the move. You said "Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film "a fake" and said he had nothing to do with it." The older Wallace is reported to have created the Bigfoot hoax in 1958. The Patterson film was in 1966, and Wallace said that he didn't have anything to do with the film. But if the whole Bigfoot claim is a hoax, then the film must be a hoax. I think "Probable" is more appropriate than "possible". CNN and others reported it as a fact that it was a hoax (when Wallace died). Personally, I tend to believe Wallace about his father, unless he is seeking publicity or something. Hmmm. When my father dies, I'll announce that he killed JFK!  :-) One thing, though - the heading says you moved it from "debunked" to "probable", but it is actually in "possible". Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Your argument seems reasonable. Since the elder Wallace claimed to have produced the original Bigfoot tracks in the area, my rule of thumb should make the original tracks at least a "probable" hoax. Patterson only set out to look for a Bigfoot in that area because of those tracks and the subsequent publicity / rash of (probably hoaxed) sightings. If Wallace had made the tracks because he'd heard of Bigfoot sightings in the area, then it's possible that Bigfoot is real but the tracks were not, and thus the film could be authentic evidence of a real phenomenon. However, I can't find any evidence of this -- Wallace claims to have come up with the idea on his own, and there don't seem to be any reports of sightings in the area previous to his (probable) hoax. Thus, the film increasingly appears to be "fruit of a poisoned tree," and more like a probable hoax than a merely possible one. Sounds good to me.
Oh, and you're right. I did put it in the "possible" section because I'm an idiot. Moved to "probable." Case closed! ;)
This [8] names a person who admitted to being in the suit. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
More and more probable? I think the Wikipedia article on Bigfoot mentions this claim. Still, I'm sticking with "probable" rather than "debunked" on this one. If Heironimus had more proof of his allegations (say, the suit itself, or other heretofore-unrevealed film from the event that confirms his role), then I'd definitely put it with "confessed by hoaxers". But I don't think this fits the "debunked" standard ... after all, I could say that the Zapruder film was faked because I was the guy driving the limousine in the footage, but that doesn't mean that it's so. In my view, the Patterson-Gimlin film is widely disputed -- and should continue to be investigated -- but is not yet verifiably debunked. Docether 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK for now. I've ordered the book "Museum of Hoaxes", and maybe that will give more details. Bubba73 (talk), 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So it is not quite certain, but here is some more info[9] and [10] and [11]. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion - split section?

What do you think about splitting the debunked section into two: "confessed" and "debunked". Debunking usually means that they were shown to be bunk by others. Or even three sections, with the third being one that disprove themselves, such as Paul is dead which disproves itself by the fact that he is still alive.

Also, should Bigfoot itself be listed? (I think so).

Dividing the debunked section into "confessed (by the perpetrator)" and "debunked (by others)" might also encourage users to add details about the perpetrator or debunker, respectively. Self-evidently false hoaxes probably don't require their own category, since there will probably be relatively few of them. Also, self-evidently false hoaxes are certainly disproved on -someone's- evidence ("I saw Paul yesterday!") though the "debunker" may simply be "everyone" or "history."
On the other hand, we could always just add a "confessed" marker of some sort, with a short explanation, to the "debunked" items where the hoaxster stepped forward (either to reveal the hoax, or to claim responsibility for an already-revealed hoax). This might be the best method, because "confessed" and "debunked" aren't necessarily exclusive of eachother. For instance, if I perpetrate a hoax, and you disprove it based on the evidence, and then I step forward and admit my responsibility for it, providing additional evidence to prove my role as the hoaxer ... well, you see where I'm going. Just a suggestion, though -- feel free to unilaterally make this decision. ;)
Re. Bigfoot -- How about adding specific Bigfoot evidence which turned out to be a hoax? That way, we can list specific events which were hoaxes (for example, the Wallace prints could be listed as a probable / confessed hoax), and remain agnostic about Bigfoot's existence on the whole. Docether 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Splitting the section seems like a good idea to me. As regards the overlap of "self-confessed" and "debunked by others", I'd suggest that since the hoaxer confessing is much stronger evidence that there's a hoax, items which are in both should be listed in the "confessed" section. There might be an exception for hoaxes where the hoaxer confessed it was a hoax, then retracted the confession, but I think there's probably few enough of those cases to make the exceptions manageable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkeyfishing

God help me, I'm clarifying "monkeyfishing". As added by an anonymous user, the sport of "monkeyfishing," or fishing for monkeys, as described in a slate.com article by Jay Forman, is in fact a hoax. However (probably unbeknownst to Mr. Forman), "monkeyfishing" for -fish- does exist. Generally banned in most areas of the US, monkey fishing involves sending an electrical charge into the water, causing fish to attempt to escape to the surface where they can be scooped up with a net. Originally the electric current was produced with a small hand-crank generator, the operation of which is reminiscent of an organ grinder's hand-crank organ (hence, "monkey" fishing). And now you know. Docether 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious works and Hoaxes

I thought there used to be a note on this page saying that religious items were not acceptable as hoaxes. In any case, in the interests of heading off incipient POV arguments, I've removed "Book of Mormon" from "proven hoaxes". The basic argument is that religious beliefs are not falsifiable and thus cannot be proved "hoaxes" without an explicit admission by the "hoaxer". This seems fair enough to me. Whether an atheist would deem all religious texts to be hoaxes is perhaps another subject for another time, but in this instance I believe that including religious works as hoaxes (again, barring the hoaxer's confession) violates NPOV. A weaker form of this argument might lead to the conclusion that all religious works are possible hoaxes (in part because of their unfalsifiable nature), but none are proven. In either case, "Book of Mormon" should be removed from "proven hoaxes." Its inclusion in other hoax categories is up to those brave souls who wish to prod the proverbial hornets' nest. Docether 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, should Lobsang Rampa be in confirmed hoaxes? It looks to me like he has not been proven to be a con-artist, only alleged. If there's something missing from the wikipedia article on him, it should be added. If there's nothing missing from his wikipedia article, i say move him to probable hoaxes. --The Sporadic Update 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (Look at me, i remembered to sign it!)

[edit] Majestic 12

Do these really belong in the Confirmed Hoaxes? I was under the impression-even with a skim of the wikipedia article on them-that there had been no absolute confirmation of a hoax. I'm not saying they're true-i'm just saying they should be in the Probable section. Yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Sporadic Update (talk • contribs).

Interesting question, because I always forget which one is correct and which one is a hoax. MajestyTwelve is the correct one according to William Cooper. He was also the person who disclosed Majestic 12, however he said that it was a hoax. ( http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm ) KittenKlub 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There certainly isn't any evidence proving them as a hoax PERIOD! In fact, there is strong evidence to support the thesis of authenticity. Every critique yet put forward has had a valid verfiable answer. The wikipedia article, as I stated in the discussion area of that article has loads of errors or lack of positive rebuttals. It's pretty funny how biased some people can be. MJ-12 was by NO MEANS a proven hoax; in fact, very far from it!

66.240.35.170 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iffy Entries

I'm considering removing Sheng Long from the list, as the story was sparked by a misunderstanding/translation and an April Fools Joke. But apparently it grew beyond that, and i'm unsure of whether or not it should be counted as an actual hoax or as an april fools joke. Opinions?--The Sporadic Update 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proven hoaxes section

I think it would be a good idea to break the "proven hoaxes" section into "proven hoaxes" and "admitted hoaxes". Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estotiland

This text appeared under the heading Probable hoaxes in a place where it obviously did not belong:

e.g., Estotiland, Drogeo, Podalida, Neome, or known to exist in rather different locations, e.g., Estland (Estonia) and Frisland (Friesland).

I did not delve into the history deeply enough to figure out what this may have related to. If someone knows, they should add the information back under an appropriate place. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_hoaxes_9a45.html"