About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.

Web Hoax Museum

RUDE ROVER
The Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREE
Who needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTA
Go ahead and pull his finger!

y'all seen this auction on Ebay yet for Gannon's credential?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3957884948&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT

Yeah, CCC, you got it essentially right, other than the fact that I haven't seen any direct connection between "Gannon" and Bob Novak.

I'm not really a Bill Clinton fan, but imagine if you will that a guy connected to porn--GAY porn, mind you--was in any way connected to him, then imagine the shit storm that would be stirred up by the right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Um, where is the "family values" crowd on this one?

Like I said, they're in the awkward position of defending the "right" of a fake reporter connected to gay porn sites who used a pseudonym to have White House press credentials. Wow, talk about lowering the bar, huh?

So what is the connection between Gannon/Guckert and Bob Novak? Was this ever investigated by the grand jury looking into the Plame case? And where did Gannon/Guckert come from? What's his background? How did he become one of two paid staffer's at Talon News? Basically, who’s his daddy?

Aside from fatuous neocon cries of infamy, any further developments from the blogosphere? Has the swarm lost momentum?

Sure,sure, there's plenty of salacious elements to this sound byte, but I want to find out, what needs exposure is the facts: who broke which law, and what the "authorities" are goning to do about it!

Apparently, Gannon/Guckert has some tax problems too:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2908

I just had a thought on this one because of the flap on the YCT bit. Follow me here, if this Gannon guy is in the porn industry, it would seem unlikely that he is connected with the Republicans. My guess is that people connected with the porn industry, without any statistics on this, are unlikely to be associated with the political party working hardest against that industry. So, this guy sets up a website claiming to be a Republican and uses that to gain favor with the White House and after asking a stupid question gets outed by a Democrat. Posibility to consider here is that he was a plant by the Democrats to embarass the Republicans and was a great success. Give the Democrats some praise on this one if true.

Right, CC, no way in hell a real republican would be into porn or would be (heaveans no) a homosexual. You've cracked the leftwing conspiracy.

Umm, Chris (remember me?), are you saying that because someone is against something publicly (insert Clinton joke here), that they would never do it?

Think carefully, and then google "republican criminals" before you respond.

Christopher Cole said:

"I just had a thought on this one because of the flap on the YCT bit. Follow me here, if this Gannon guy is in the porn industry, it would seem unlikely that he is connected with the Republicans. My guess is that people connected with the porn industry, without any statistics on this, are unlikely to be associated with the political party working hardest against that industry."

Hey, Chris, I guess you haven't heard about the newest trend. It's C-R-A-Z-Y, man, and all the kids are talking about it.

It's called "hypocrisy" and anyone can get "into" it. What you do is SAY one thing but DO the opposite! Isn't that the wackiest thing you've ever heard of?

The three of you seem to have misunderstood my point. I was not saying that Republicans don't like porn, they are after all human, nor was I saying that there are no homosexual Republicans, I can remember publicity about the Log Cabin Republicans from some years back. My point was that a Republican would be unlikely to be a major player in the porn industry, especially the homosexual subset of the porn industry. It is more likely that this guy, Gannon, would be a Democrat or apolitical. If his unmasking wasn't deliberate, then it only shows that the Republicans didn't check very hard into his past. And if it was a Democrat that revealed his past, it is more likely that this is a Democratic dirty trick than a REpublican one.

Christopher Cole said:

"My point was that a Republican would be unlikely to be a major player in the porn industry, especially the homosexual subset of the porn industry. It is more likely that this guy, Gannon, would be a Democrat or apolitical."

Well, he is definitely NOT apolitical. Check his website, jeffgannon.com.

Christopher, I think you're making a fundamental mistake here. The problem seems to be that you simply assume that the Republicans (I refer here to people high up in the party, not individual members) are sincere. Why do you make this assumption?

I've found that a lot of seeming inconsistancies (rhetoric versus behavior) can be easily reconciled if you simply stop assuming that a person is sincere in what they say.

Think about it for a moment: Many Republicans have won office recently on a platform that opposes gay marriage and abortion. The Republicans currently have a majority in both houses of Congress AND control a majority of state governorships and legislatures. The Democrats would have a hard, or impossible, time successfully opposing just about anything that the Republicans tried to get through Congress. Yet, despite this huge advantage, the Republicans haven't even attempted to INTRODUCE a bill opposing either of those things.

If the time to introduce legislation regarding things you have demonized as two of the greatest evils in American life isn't when you have control of government, when would it be?

Get my point? Basically, what I'm saying is that they care more about using these "evils" to "energize" their base than about actually *doing* anything about them. They are not sincere in their "opposition" to them.

Once you stop assuming sincerity on their part, suddenly the existance of a Jeff Gannon in their midst doesn't seem so hard to understand.

"If his unmasking wasn't deliberate, then it only shows that the Republicans didn't check very hard into his past. And if it was a Democrat that revealed his past, it is more likely that this is a Democratic dirty trick than a REpublican one."

No, what it shows is that they didn't CARE about his past, until it became a liability, that is.

Over this weekend, a major Republican strategist who helped, among others, Jesse Helms get elected announced that he married his BOYFRIEND in December. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, is gay. Last year, a Republican Congressman who has stridently opposed gay rights, was caught advertising for sex on a gay website. Getting the picture yet?

You need to be more skeptical. Just because someone SAYS something, that doesn't mean that they are sincere. Often, people become fanatics in seeming to oppose that which they themselves are "guilty" of. It's called "distraction."

No, I do not assume that Republicans are always sincere, any more than Democrats are always sincere. I do assume that Republicans are no stupidier than the general population. And it would be stupid for a prominate producer/actor, or whatever this Gannon guy is, in the porn industry to believe he can successfully keep people from discovering it. Especially popping his head up like he did in that news conference. Whoever it was that got him there wasn't thinking, which is why I tend to think the whole thing was a dirty trick. And a very successful one. From what I understand, this Gannon guy had his website for only a short time before he got selected to get his press pass and ask "the question." That short time is more likely to be for a cover than a real belief system, unless you can show that he has held these beliefs he says he has for a long time before starting up the website. No one has shown me any reason to not suspect a political dirty trick. Republicans do them and Democracts do them. Why do you assume that Democrats don't have the political savy to pull a dirty trick?

Here's a twist. A pronographer that revealed she was Republican, and got fired for it.

The Drudge Dude...

Why, Christopher, do YOU always assume that anything which goes against your selected political leanings HAS to be a dirty trick by the opposing party (or parties, as the case may be)?

"Why do you assume that Democrats don't have the political savy to pull a dirty trick?" - CC
Umm, nobody said that, Chris.

haa hAA!

I said "pronographer".

Granted no one said that, but everyone keeps stopping at the curtain and I keep asking "what if there is a man behind the curtain?" and everyone says "there is no man behind the curtain because the trail ends at the curtain." I keep saying that if this is a dirty trick, it is a good one, it has almost everyone stopped at the curtain. I'm praising the Democrats and slamming the Republicans for letting it happen to them. And I haven't said one word that I can remember about my political philosophy. Since this forum is the only contact you have with me, you may or may not believe me when I say I often ask questions or bring up points just to get them considered, not because I believe in them. If you were here you could ask at my church where I do this sort of thing all the time. However, as I mentioned, you can believe or not.

This is Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo, signing off.

Christopher Cole said:

"Granted no one said that, but everyone keeps stopping at the curtain and I keep asking "what if there is a man behind the curtain?" and everyone says "there is no man behind the curtain because the trail ends at the curtain."

Oh, there most certainly IS a "man behind the curtain" and his name is Karl Rove.

Christopher Cole said:

"No, I do not assume that Republicans are always sincere, any more than Democrats are always sincere. I do assume that Republicans are no stupidier than the general population. And it would be stupid for a prominate producer/actor, or whatever this Gannon guy is, in the porn industry to believe he can successfully keep people from discovering it."

Clearing things up, he wasn't a "producer/actor." He was a guy who ran websites like hotmilitarystuds.com, etc. If you've been following the story closely, you'd see that he's a pretty arrogant asshole. He seems to be as much of an attention whore as he is a REGULAR whore.

"From what I understand, this Gannon guy had his website for only a short time before he got selected to get his press pass and ask "the question." That short time is more likely to be for a cover than a real belief system, unless you can show that he has held these beliefs he says he has for a long time before starting up the website."

Not exactly accurate. You might want to check out Americablog and dailykos.com for the details, but he had at least some of the websites up for at least several months prior to him asking "the question." Actually, "the question" is only relevant because it was what made people finally ask who he was. He was attending White House press briefings for two years at that point, on "daily passes" which are not normally given day in, day out to any other "reporter."

Oh, by the way, when he first started attending the briefings, Talon News, which he "reported" for didn't even exist yet. In other words, when he first became a White House "reporter," he had no one to "report" for! Good trick to get a White House press pass day in and day out when you don't even have an employer. No other "reporter" seems to have been able to do that.

"No one has shown me any reason to not suspect a political dirty trick. Republicans do them and Democracts do them."

Nor have you shown any evidence that it is anything other than what it appears to be: a self-hating gay man who aligns himself with the GOP for self-aggrandizement purposes and who fucked up by being too over-the-top.

"Why do you assume that Democrats don't have the political savy to pull a dirty trick?"

I don't, but you haven't shown anything resembling evidence that they perpetrated THIS particular dirty trick.

Seriously, go to Americablog and dailykos.com and see the extensive coverage they have given this story and the facts that they've uncovered. See if your opinion changes after reading that material.

All I wanted was consideration of the possibility that this could be a dirty trick. If it was, it was a good one. If this Gannon guy had been working this for two years before he got exposed as a fake, he probably wasn't a plant. Although the Soviets laid moles for longer periods for their stunts on occasion.

If it was a dirty trick, it worked damn well. The Republicans are standing around with mud all over their faces. If it was for real, then this Gannon guy had to be stupid to think he could get away with popping the question like he did and get off scot free.

Christopher Cole said:

"All I wanted was consideration of the possibility that this could be a dirty trick. If it was, it was a good one. If this Gannon guy had been working this for two years before he got exposed as a fake, he probably wasn't a plant. Although the Soviets laid moles for longer periods for their stunts on occasion."

Yes, I promise you it's true that "Gannon" was getting into the White House for two years on what are *supposed* to be day passes. He's admitted that much. That makes it look certain that someone inside the House was letting him get in, which raises interesting questions.

"If it was a dirty trick, it worked damn well. The Republicans are standing around with mud all over their faces. If it was for real, then this Gannon guy had to be stupid to think he could get away with popping the question like he did and get off scot free."

I think you've basically answered your own question. He really does come off as an arrogant asshole. COULD the Democrats have set it up? Sure. DID they? Well, there's no evidence that they did and all the existing evidence suggests that they didn't.

As for it being "effective," was it really? Since the TV news is where most Americans get their information from and since TV news barely covered the story, most Americans have no idea who "Jeff Gannon" is, so I don't think that it had ANY effect, positive or negative, on the average person's opinion of the Republicans.