The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Iceberg floats into Sydney Harbor, 1978
The Case of the Vanishing Belly Button, 1964
The Sandpaper Test, 1960
The Gallery of Fake Viral Images
September Morn, the painting that shocked the censor, 1913
The Hoaxing Hitchhiker, 1941
Princess Caraboo, servant girl who became a princess, 1817
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
The boy with the golden tooth, 1593
The Lovely Feejee Mermaid, 1842
Bush Twins in Maxim
image As an April Fool's Day prank Maxim magazine has printed a photo of the Bush twins doctored to make it look like they're decked out in lingerie. Of course, Maxim has also plastered a number of disclaimers on the image, just to make sure that no one thinks the picture is real. Most of the media avoids focusing on the twins too much, for fear of incurring the wrath of the White House. But Maxim evidently figured that the attention it would get by printing the picture would offset anything the White House could possibly do to it.
Categories: Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Thu Mar 31, 2005
Comments (30)
I think it's pretty chickenshit of a magazine, especially one like Maxim, which likes to style itself as "edgy," to put disclaimers all over the picture. If you're going to do that, what's the point of printing the picture at all? The whole point is (or should be) to make people think that the twins posed for a picture like that. Sticking the disclaimers on it totally ruins the joke. Gutless, gutless, gutless.

Boy, people sure are afraid of the White House in what's supposed to be a country with a government "of, by and for the people."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  02:58 AM
...What the hell would the White House do about it? Anyone remember whitehouse.com?
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  09:41 AM
The pictures are obvious fakes.
Everybody in Austin knows the Bush twins don't wear lingerie.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  11:30 AM
I can't believe no one has made a crack about them being the "Bush" twins yet! Is no one else thinking that there could be a whole plethera of material there to use? For instance... a Gilette commercial maybe? Anything, seems to me like there's a million jokes there just waiting to be cracked.
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  04:57 PM
I don't know why it would even be a big deal to see the Bush twins in lingerie. I'm sure you could see either of the little alcoholic whores completely naked if you bought them enough drinks to get them drunk (which, because of their high tolerance as alkies, would be very EXPENSIVE, but there you go).

I wonder if they've gone drunk driving and killed anyone like their mom did yet? We'd never hear about it if they did, Daddy would cover it up nicely.
Posted by Barghest  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  09:45 PM
So the White House would go after Maxim if they didn't put disclaimers all over this, but they didn't go after Moveon.org? Or Michael Moore? Total paranoia. Besides, everybody knows it's fake-Jenna Bush is a LOT bustier than that.
Posted by John Salmon  on  Fri Apr 01, 2005  at  02:25 AM
John Salmon said:

"So the White House would go after Maxim if they didn't put disclaimers all over this, but they didn't go after Moveon.org? Or Michael Moore? Total paranoia."

Well, remember that Moveon.org is a political organization specifically set-up to oppose Bush policies while Maxim is a commercial venture. Not quite the same thing.

I don't know if the White House would actually go after Maxim or Dennis Publishing, but I think they fear something like that. If not, why spoil what's supposed to be an April Fool's joke with a bunch of stupid disclaimers? They completely blunt the joke.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Apr 01, 2005  at  02:31 AM
The reason I stopped reading Maxim, even though it cost me nothing because someone else payed for it and I just read theirs, was that they would cut down absolutely everyone, but when they cut down the people "in power" the article was always apologetic at some point for doing it.

I hated when they cut down Canada, but that didn't stop me reading.

I loved when they cut down the US, but when they constantly apologized, especially after the plane thingy, it was just so much horseshit that I wouldn't even read it for free.

If they were going to apologize so often, they should have apologized to everyone, not just the people who may have had a bearing on their future.

If they had to apologize, why bother printing the article?
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Fri Apr 01, 2005  at  02:56 AM
"So the White House would go after Maxim if they didn't put disclaimers all over this, but they didn't go after Moveon.org? Or Michael Moore? Total paranoia."

It only sounds paranoid if you phrase it like that, as a straw man.

We all know that the White House doesn't do its own dirty work. It has a vast network of eager, aggressive pawns to attack its foes. Why go after anybody when Limbaugh, Scarborough, USANext, Swift Boat Liars, and any random religious nutjob on the street will go after them for free, on their own, out of misguided and unthinking loyalty?

Do you REALLY THINK nobody has 'gone after' Michael Moore and Moveon? The right-wingers have founded entire organizations to do just that. Wake up.
Posted by Barghest  on  Fri Apr 01, 2005  at  09:36 PM
Barghest said:

"Do you REALLY THINK nobody has 'gone after' Michael Moore and Moveon? The right-wingers have founded entire organizations to do just that. Wake up."

Couldn't agree more, Barghest. Right-wing organizations certainly DID go after MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, to the extent of publishing books and making movies about him.

It isn't necessarily the White House specifically that Dennis Publishing may fear.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Apr 02, 2005  at  08:01 PM
Yeah, Bargest, we all know the White House has a vast network of pawns, just like the "right wing conspiracy" it sent to Clinton. Get over yourself. You're a bitter crank. We won. Deal with it.
Posted by booch  on  Sun Apr 03, 2005  at  02:51 PM
that geedub... what a hoaxster... WMDs... and you all fell for it... he's so funny- he just slays people
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sun Apr 03, 2005  at  03:06 PM
GWB never hoaxed me with that WMD BS... I knew it was lack of good intelligence that was running us to war. Look at his grades in college, for the love of God
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sun Apr 03, 2005  at  03:12 PM
Booch said:

"Yeah, Bargest, we all know the White House has a vast network of pawns, just like the "right wing conspiracy" it sent to Clinton. Get over yourself. You're a bitter crank. We won. Deal with it."

Ah, smell the Compassionate Conservatism!

By the way, what do you mean by saying that a right wing conspiracy was "sent" to Clinton?

Yup, "you" won. Personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high, the dollar is in the toilet, gas prices have never been higher, we're in a war against a country that didn't attack us which has resulted in over 1500 dead soldiers so far (and more on the way.) None of that matters, of course, so long as "you" won. Congratulations!
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Apr 03, 2005  at  06:50 PM
>>>Yeah, Bargest, we all know the White House has a vast network of pawns, just like the "right wing conspiracy" it sent to Clinton.<<<

I'm glad you're a big enough person to admit it. It is obvious and well-established with lots of evidence, after all. You know what they say--reality has a liberal bias.

>>>Get over yourself. You're a bitter crank.<<<

Translation: you're on to us, so I have to try to discredit you by bitching instead of addressing the truth you know too much about. Also, we desperately hope that by telling you to 'get over it', you'll stop pointing out all our hypocrisies, crimes, and incompetent failings.

No wonder you idiots went so nuts over Terri Schiavo. Brainless people have to stick together, right?

>>>We won. Deal with it.<<<

Oh, YOU won, huh? I suppose you're one of the few elite millionaires that the Bush regime is actually benefitting? Or are you just another working stiff who's paying $2.50 a gallon for gas just like all the rest of us? Maybe you think the Cowboy from Connecticut is just going to take away the Social Security of liberals, but he'll leave yours alone? Oh, maybe when the draft comes, they'll only draft Democrats' kids! Wake up, you're being screwed over just like everyone else is. You're just too damned stupid to realize and/or admit it.
Posted by Barghest  on  Mon Apr 04, 2005  at  11:17 PM
Still wouldn't mind knowing if the Bush twins are sporting any bush or not. smile Maybe if MAXIM had sprung for some booze (like was suggested) it wouldn't have been a hoax and they wouldn't have had to put the disclaimers in... booze em' up, strip em' down, and light em' up.

Let's not forget that this thread was originally about; twins, bush or Bush (whichever you prefer), lingerie, and April Fools Day... not actual politics. The elections (if that's what you want to call them) are over. We're screwed... might as well have some light-hearted fun in the meantime... save the serious debate for the next convention.

wink
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Tue Apr 05, 2005  at  09:11 PM
I wouldn't say that this is a April fool's day prank or that Maxim was afraid of Dubya's wrath. Every issue has a page with a "Women you'll never see in Maxim" such as the most recent issue with a photo of a leather bra laden Ellen DeGeneres.
Posted by Giskardian  on  Mon Jul 04, 2005  at  11:42 AM
Its always comical resding what libs say. They are as a group some of the most ill informed individuals. Over 5 million new jobs created, the lowest unemployment in 50 years. This despite the 9/11 attacks, Worldcom, Enron and a tanking inherited economy. What do liberal politicians have to offer aside from compalints? I've heard no plans, only goals. Goals mean nothing if there is no plan for achieving them.
Posted by Greg  on  Sat Jul 29, 2006  at  03:05 PM
Greg said:

"Its always comical resding what libs say. They are as a group some of the most ill informed individuals. Over 5 million new jobs created, the lowest unemployment in 50 years."

First off, Greg, congratulations on commenting on a year-old posting. Way to keep up!

Now I have no particular love for the current crop of Democrats, who are verging on the invertibrate, as far as I'm concerned, but the Bush people are primordial slime by comparison.

As for "5 million new jobs created," uh, how many have been LOST? If you "create" 5 million but LOSE 10 million, that's no particular achievement, is it? By the way, you might want to take a look into how the official government unemployment statistics are compiled some time.

Just for starters, once a person runs out of unemployment benefits, the government simply STOPS COUNTING THEM. Yup, even though by real world standards they may still be very much unemployed, the government just doesn't count them anymore. Therefore, any "official" government unemployment number you see is low by millions.

Second, most of the jobs "created" under Bush are low-paying service jobs. LOST jobs, on the other hand, tend to be in the areas of engineering, manufacturing, etc. Do you think that an America in which more and more people are shaking a fry basket is a good thing? I don't.

Thirdly, there are a few other interesting wrinkles in the way the government compiles unemployment statistics, but I'll leave that for another day.

So, were you saying something about people being "ill-informed?"
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Jul 31, 2006  at  04:18 AM
Oh, I forgot. The Bush administration, according to official Federal government numbers, has missed its own job creation forecast by thousands of jobs per month for at least the last four months now. Remember, THEY are the ones who make the prediction of how many jobs will be created and they have fallen short repeatedly. So, were you saying something about the economy being good?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  04:56 AM
So by your definition, if the Bush administration predicted there would be 6 million new jobs and there were "only" 5.9 million, the economy is bad? Let's see, consistant economic growth, household income up, tax revenues up, low unemployment. Yeah sounds like a bad economy to me.
Posted by Conservative  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  05:44 AM
Dear Conservative:

Your example has millions of jobs being predicted and the actual number missing by only a hundred thousand. The problem with that is that it's incorrect. The jobs forecasts are generally in the hundreds of thousands range and they have fallen short for the past several months by many thousands. Remember again that these are THEIR predictions, not predictions made by some outside group.

"Let's see, consistant economic growth, household income up, tax revenues up, low unemployment. Yeah sounds like a bad economy to me."

Did you not read what I actually posted? I already refuted the notion of "low unemployment.
As for "consistant economic growth," uh, right now a full 18% of the economy is attributable to housing related things like mortgages. When the government can no longer artificially keep interest rates low, watch for that "consistant growth" to fall faster than a rock on top of Wile E. Coyote.

Household income is up? Oh, really? Did you think to adjust for inflation? The average American has LOST ground over the past several years in REAL dollars.

Also, last I heard, tax revenue was NOT up. Besides, aren't conservatives AGAINST taxes going up? Don't you guys believe that the government should be cut to the bone?

Oh, and how about that deficit? You know, the one that's larger than any deficit any government has ever run up in the history of the world? Yeah, that one. How's that working for you?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Aug 07, 2006  at  09:01 PM
Oh, another thing. Personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high. That's "all-time" as in "more of them than there's EVER been."

Oh, while I'm thinking about it, how about GM and Ford approaching junk bond status? Yup, that's the sign of a GREAT economy, for sure.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Aug 08, 2006  at  04:01 AM
As if to back up my previous comments, we have this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/opinion/08tue2.html?_r=1&th&emc;=th&oref=slogin
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Aug 08, 2006  at  07:20 PM
Oh, and about that great housing market, how about this?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/toll_brothers/index.htm?pop
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Aug 10, 2006  at  03:11 AM
Hey, Conservative, did my citation of actual FACTS scare you back to Fox News Channel?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Aug 15, 2006  at  05:12 AM
Oh, since I can't resist, here's one more. Is that the sound of the housing bubble bursting that I hear?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060815/D8JH0TOO0.html
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Aug 15, 2006  at  04:27 PM
Hey, did you see where Ford is shutting down a bunch of plants. Boy, if the economy gets any "better," Ford might just go out of business.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Aug 19, 2006  at  04:57 AM
Just because I like to fantasize that "conservative" is lurking about, reading these postings and shaking his fist, here's more about the "great economy":

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/another_year_another_wage_loss/

Part of me honestly wishes I could be like "conservative," just believing what I want, with no
facts behind it at all. I guess I'm just stuck
being part of the "reality-based community" though.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Sep 04, 2006  at  03:26 AM
Maxim could have dug up some college pics of the twins covered in bukkake juice or drinking the blood of Iraqi children. Someone should blow a load all over Jenna's face as she goes around on her book tour.
Posted by Tuna Meister  in  Atlanta, GA  on  Sun Nov 04, 2007  at  06:22 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.