 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | ABOUT THE CURATOR | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
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.
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.Prankplace.com
THE TOILET MONSTERYour wife will never yell at you about leaving the seat up again! The Toilet Monster attaches to the inside of the toilet bowl by suction cups. As the unsuspecting person goes to use the bathroom, they'll scream as they lift the lid and are greeted by the Toilet Monster! Not recommended for the elderly or those with a weak heart.
COVERT CLICKERSecretly control the TV, anywhere, any time! This device is so small it is easily concealed in your pocket. It can control volume, change the channel or turn the TV on & off. It works on 90% of all TV's.
Lion vs. Midgets
A faux BBC news article describing a match between one lion and 42 unarmed midget fighters has been linked to by a lot of sites. However, the article is now clearly labelled as a fake. Apparently what inspired the article was a debate some guy was having with his friend about who would win in a hypothetical fight between one lion and 40 weaponless midgets. He created the fake BBC piece in order to convince his friend that the lion would win. Personally, I don't think it matters if it were 40 midgets or 40 pro-basketball players. The lion would still win, because a lion has claws and sharp teeth, and people don't. Plus, the lion is a lot stronger. Incidentally, I just learned that 'midget' is considered a derogatory term. But I don't think the author of the faux article was too concerned about being PC.Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
I once knew some guys who ran this webpage that was sort of like a celebrity deathmatch...only, about 5 years before CDM. They paired of people like Zack Morris & Ferris Bueller. Batman vs. Superman (Batman won!)...the guys would do this running commentary about the "fight", and then have spectators vote on the outcome. I wish I could find their site again...it was neat-o.
Posted by Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA on Mon May 09, 2005 at 02:54 AMPah, Batman so wouldn't have won.
Posted by Boo in The Land of the Haggii... on Mon May 09, 2005 at 03:00 AMI didn't see what Maegan was thinking about, but I do believe that Batman could win, because he has a piece of Kryptonite, and he's a lot smarter.
Posted by Rita on Mon May 09, 2005 at 04:13 AMHe has a piece of kryptonite?
Really?
Posted by Boo in The Land of the Haggii... on Mon May 09, 2005 at 04:20 AMReally?
...My post WAS trying to be related to the original blog...in that those guys could have done what the webpage I mentioned does...have a blow-by-blow account, and then a vote.
Batman would TOO have won. Superman is an ALIEN.
Posted by Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA on Mon May 09, 2005 at 04:36 AMBatman would TOO have won. Superman is an ALIEN.
Not to comic book guy, but Batman did win. Superman and Batman fought in Frank Millers: Dark Night Returns, Batman won by using some kryptonite...
Posted by ReadbackMonkey on Mon May 09, 2005 at 05:00 AMThere's no way Batman would win. Superman would just vaporize him from space - End of story. And I'm not a comic geek. Just a computer one.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Mon May 09, 2005 at 05:22 AM"'midget' is considered a derogatory term. "
like so called "big people" who are in reality just plain FAT.
big btw is in dutch PIG
so maybe, just maybe big people are just that... pigs
Posted by Beasjt on Mon May 09, 2005 at 07:01 AMlike so called "big people" who are in reality just plain FAT.
big btw is in dutch PIG
so maybe, just maybe big people are just that... pigs
BTW in dutch, the word Beasjt means "moron"....
Posted by booch on Mon May 09, 2005 at 08:50 AMAnyone fooled by that photoshopping diserves to be fooled. Bad bad job...
Posted by Bearfoot in usa on Mon May 09, 2005 at 12:23 PMAlex, I would think that by about ten or so midgets, or short people, the lion would have had its eyes poked out, and maybe bleed to death over a few hours.
Posted by Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry on Mon May 09, 2005 at 05:19 PMMutton Jeff = Deaf.
Canary Wharf = dwarf.
Cardinal Wolsey = cerebral palsy.
Raspberry Ripple = cripple.
Rubber and plastic = spastic.
Tulips and roses = multiple sclerosis.
Bacon rind = blind.
Diet Pepsi = epilepsy.
Benny and the Jets = Tourettes.
Wasps and bees = amputee.
Haha--I'm going to have to remember these.
Posted by Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry on Mon May 09, 2005 at 05:29 PMCanary Wharf = dwarf.
Cardinal Wolsey = cerebral palsy.
Raspberry Ripple = cripple.
Rubber and plastic = spastic.
Tulips and roses = multiple sclerosis.
Bacon rind = blind.
Diet Pepsi = epilepsy.
Benny and the Jets = Tourettes.
Wasps and bees = amputee.
Haha--I'm going to have to remember these.
Yeah...
I think if you picked out one or two to sacrifice that the rest of the "vertically-challenged" could then take the lion...
Give him a little (NPI) something to snack on and then have a couple guys try to strangle him via suffocation. Combine this with another one giving his danglers a good yank (causing a roar of pain and making him exhale while doing so) and I'm pretty sure they could eventually give him a head-lock of death. So long as it was an uninjured person trying to strangle him and not a half-eaten one!
Posted by Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA on Mon May 09, 2005 at 08:34 PMI think if you picked out one or two to sacrifice that the rest of the "vertically-challenged" could then take the lion...
Give him a little (NPI) something to snack on and then have a couple guys try to strangle him via suffocation. Combine this with another one giving his danglers a good yank (causing a roar of pain and making him exhale while doing so) and I'm pretty sure they could eventually give him a head-lock of death. So long as it was an uninjured person trying to strangle him and not a half-eaten one!
Oops...
I meant "suffocate him via strangulation" not vice versa...
Posted by Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA on Mon May 09, 2005 at 08:35 PMI meant "suffocate him via strangulation" not vice versa...
Midget offensive???
Well, that's just political correctness gone mentally challenged!
Posted by Peter in London on Tue May 10, 2005 at 11:53 AMWell, that's just political correctness gone mentally challenged!
Midget offensive??? - Peter
Why do I picture lots of little people climbing out of trenches and charging toward the enemy?
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Tue May 10, 2005 at 01:05 PMWhy do I picture lots of little people climbing out of trenches and charging toward the enemy?
Charybdis 
Thank you.
Posted by Peter in London on Tue May 10, 2005 at 01:42 PM Thank you.
That exchange between Roger Ebert (medium-to-large movie critic) and Daniel Woodburn (small/little/midget/dwarf/short/diminutive actor) is profoundly unsatisfying, because, while saying that he finds the term "midget" offensive (without ever being too crystal-clear as to why), he never really explicitly states what his preferred term is when he needs to describe someone of small stature.
Until somebody clears that up for me, I'm stuck using cumbersome locutions like "someone of small stature."
Posted by Big "You can call me Large" Gary in Dallas in Dallas, Texas, USA on Tue May 10, 2005 at 03:06 PMUntil somebody clears that up for me, I'm stuck using cumbersome locutions like "someone of small stature."
Big Gary. I got the impression he uses "Little people"
Which to my ear seems worse than midget.
Posted by Peter in London on Tue May 10, 2005 at 03:23 PMWhich to my ear seems worse than midget.
Dark Knight Returns, Dark Knight Returns II, Hush...Batman and Superman end up fighting all the time (DC has been doing books for a loooong time and often run out of ideas for things to do with their top two characters, so that's pretty much a default plot line). Batman almost always wins. He does have kryptonite--he has Lex Luthor's kryptonite ring, Superman deliberately gave it to him so that if he ever goes rogue due to mind control or such, he knows someone will be able to stop him. (Which is exactly what happened when Poison Ivy took control of Supes during the Hush storyline).
But that's just a convenient method, it's not the real reason Batman wins against Superman. The real reason is that Batman is a genius-level intellect who is ruthless enough to do anything short of killing to attain his goals; Superman is scientifically brilliant, but he's not a lateral thinker, and he's constantly hampered by his complicated moral code. (He sort of has to be--anyone with that much power had better have lots of self-restraint, for the good of the planet.)
That's the whole point--Superman is capable of vaporizing Batman from orbit, but he would never be able to bring himself to do it. He'd angst and hem and haw, and meanwhile Batman sneaks up behind him and judo-throws him into a teleportation matrix to a red-sun solar system or something similar. Heck, Batman once strapped a bomb to his body and told Superman that if he didn't give up, "someone" in the city would be blown to smithereens. A guy who's a big blue boyscout can't win against an obsessive-compulsive genius who's willing to gamble his own life to win. Who could, except for another ruthless obsessive-compulsive genius? (Prometheus or Luthor, for instance....)
Posted by Barghest on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:31 PMBut that's just a convenient method, it's not the real reason Batman wins against Superman. The real reason is that Batman is a genius-level intellect who is ruthless enough to do anything short of killing to attain his goals; Superman is scientifically brilliant, but he's not a lateral thinker, and he's constantly hampered by his complicated moral code. (He sort of has to be--anyone with that much power had better have lots of self-restraint, for the good of the planet.)
That's the whole point--Superman is capable of vaporizing Batman from orbit, but he would never be able to bring himself to do it. He'd angst and hem and haw, and meanwhile Batman sneaks up behind him and judo-throws him into a teleportation matrix to a red-sun solar system or something similar. Heck, Batman once strapped a bomb to his body and told Superman that if he didn't give up, "someone" in the city would be blown to smithereens. A guy who's a big blue boyscout can't win against an obsessive-compulsive genius who's willing to gamble his own life to win. Who could, except for another ruthless obsessive-compulsive genius? (Prometheus or Luthor, for instance....)
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >