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 Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.

The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.

Web Hoax Museum

Thats gross

Here's some more about "Talking Water." Jesus, people are stupid!

http://www.mybiopro.com/VoicesInHarmonyEvent.aspx?ID=awengrove

i didn't expect the spanish inquisition.

"I didn't expect the spanish inquisition." Noone does...

The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?
There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism...

Kyger said:

"The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?"

I'm sorry, how do PICTURES prove that water can respond to emotions or do anything other than be wet? Please explain.

"There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism..."

Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit.

You DO understand, don't you, that WE don't have to prove anything? It's up to the author or a supporter of the author's premise to demonstrate that the theory of "intelligent water" or whatever it's called is anything other than bizarre irrational nonsense.

If you can prove that water can indeed respond to emotions under controlled conditions, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a million-dollar prize waiting for you. I direct you to their site, randi.org, for the details. Good luck.

Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?

I am totally serious. http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#4

I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?

One of the ministers was my own minister at my RS church I attended for 17 years. Unbelievable.

Can anyone say: Galileo?

Conrad Askland said:

"Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?"

Yes, unfortunately, I WOULD believe it. There is no definable line between "religion" and "superstition." Those ministers are straddling any line anyone could point out. They're nuts.

"I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?"

Yup, in the same sense that gravity is just "your reality." Tell these goofs to jump off a high building. After all, crashing to Earth is just "their reality."

you know how he said that unpolluted water (pure?) creates colourful and beautiful crystals, and the polluted water creates dull, ugly crystals. well my theory is that the more pure the water the less non-water particles there are to a) muck up the ideal water crystal lattice and b) create different colours by not allowing the clear water particles to refract light as the pure water would. no pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure. of course pure water is gpoing to bond better to itself thus creating perfect water crystals, if there's pollutants in there then they'll 'get in the way' how technical, but i bet i'm right.

woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure

Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble.
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha

"woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure"

Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?

JasDub said:

"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."

Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."

Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."

I agree, irrational thinking can lead to death. But first of all water formation do have crystals. If you read what I stated earlier, I said Emoto's claim needs to be proved by other scientists over and over again under tight provisions, before we can disregard his stuff as "magical thinking." Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not. BTW, if anyone knows of independ studies that confirm this or not please email me or reply.

You are entirely missing the whole point. He has not proved anything. His work has never been submitted for peer review. James Randi has offered Emoto the one million dollar paranormal prize just to prove what he says he's already doing.

It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.

That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.

JasDub said:

"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."

What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."

The human-like God from the Bible; that's something utterly weird to believe in, in my opinion. 'Wise' man like the president of the united stated believe things I would call backwards. Well, some wise man believe that.
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.

According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.

I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p

can somebody with the tools needed please take some photos of the water that is from:
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.

Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary.

Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.

Oh, well.

joedogjoe said:

"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."

You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?