The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Jennifer Love Hewitt's Disappearing Breasts
The Crown Prince Regent of Thulia, 1954
The Great Wall of China Hoax, 1899
Princess Caraboo, servant girl who became a princess, 1817
Dead Body of Loch Ness Monster Found, 1972
Van Gogh's ear exhibited, 1935
Pierre Brassau, Monkey Artist, 1964
The Great New York Zoo Escape Hoax, 1874
Bizarre pictographs of Emmanuel Domenech, 1860
Old-Time Photo Fakery, 1900 to 1919
Hidden Messages in Water
I got an email from Enio asking me: I would like to know your opinion about Masaru Emoto's "Crystal Water Photos".

First, some background. Masaru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water is currently #66 in sales rank on Amazon. That means A LOT of people are buying it. Here's the blurb from the cover that pretty much explains what Masaru Emoto and his crystal water photos are all about:

The Hidden Messages in Water is an eye-opening theory showing how water is deeply connected to people's individual and collective consciousness. Drawing from his own research, scientific researcher, healer, and popular lecturer Dr. Masaru Emoto describes the ability of water to absorb, hold, and even retransmit human feelings and emotions. Using high-speed photography, he found that crystals formed in frozen water reveal changes when specific, concentrated thoughts are directed toward it. Music, visual images, words written on paper, and photographs also have an impact on the crystal structure. Emoto theorizes that since water has the ability to receive a wide range of frequencies, it can also reflect the universe in this manner. He found that water from clear springs and water exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns, while polluted water and water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors. Emoto believes that since people are 70 percent water, and the Earth is 70 percent water, we can heal our planet and ourselves by consciously expressing love and goodwill.

What do I think of this theory? Well, at the risk of giving off a lot of negative energy that's going to make a whole bunch of water crystals get all bent out of shape, I think it's complete baloney. But then, I'm not very 'open minded' about things like this. So I would think that.
(but I have to add: since when has the earth been 70 percent water? Do they mean the surface of the earth? That might make sense. But the earth itself ain't 70 percent water)
Categories: Photos/Videos, Science
Posted by The Curator on Wed Apr 06, 2005
Comments (123)
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
Posted by JasDub  in  Los Angeles  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  01:07 AM
"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?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub  in  Los Angeles  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  01:10 AM
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."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  02:47 AM
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.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  05:00 PM
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.
Posted by Ernest  in  Seattle, Wa  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  05:22 PM
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."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  07:15 PM
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
Posted by Flo  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  07:53 AM
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.

raspberry
Posted by Floris  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  07:55 AM
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.
Posted by joedogjoe  in  PDX  on  Mon Jan 23, 2006  at  01:02 AM
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?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Jan 23, 2006  at  04:22 PM
> How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing?

I have his book and this described some kind of not-2-proper scientific testing.. ..I don't expect to get better testing from the inventor himself more than I expect proof of god from the pope.

No nobody disproved this guy he... ...maybe he is right. Reading his book did give me some feeling he is on a right track...

I did see the move 'What the bleeb do we know' recently; also about this special water.. ..and about quantum mechanics and thoughts changing quantum-possibility-fields:p
Posted by Floris  on  Tue Jan 24, 2006  at  04:41 AM
"You're asking us to prove a negative."

you are not being asked to do anything... not even believe. the challenge is to provide evidence that what is being claimed is a false positive.

this claim is not entirely unlike the claim that plants are affected by their environment. it could be that the photography used and the type of water (polluted and spring) were factors. it would be interesting if someone were to do similar experiments. but, as with all comparative experiments, there are going to be different results. nothing is entirely conclusive. more results from scientific experiments will likely only provide you with more reason to argue and disbelieve. just don't be directing your crystal-distorting thoughts and energy my way. lol
Posted by fromthelittlem  on  Tue Feb 07, 2006  at  10:17 AM
seenit for myself, very easy to prove. just grow 2 plants, shout abuse at 1 , and praise and.thank the other . great and rapid success over twelve weeks with marijuana plants.
go, now do it
Posted by smokebush  in  eire  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  07:47 AM
"You're asking us to prove a negative."

Hi, who is or are "us" by the way?

And proving a negative is not so hard, like disproving "all things fall up" by one 'negative'; something falling down...


I stil like thus water theory, but seen nog provind or disproving at all...
Posted by FLo  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  08:07 AM
It's not actually asking anyone to prove a negative - it's shifting the burden of proof. Of course someone could design an experiment to test Emoto's hypotheses (at least if they were clearly formulated - I'm not sure if that is the case); the question is why anyone should make the substantial investments it would take to test something for which there is no evidence? As has been observed, Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong. That's OK, I guess - it would be great to have some new major scientific paradigm shift.

However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right - for a start, if theywasn't then we wouldn't have the technology to be having this discussion! - and there is nothing but a single crank's unreplicated and highly improbable assertions to support that thesis that our knowledge of chemistry is mistaken.

When someone makes a claim that goes against all extant knowledge it is reasonable to expect that person to prove the claim; it is not reasonable to demand, instead, that it be treated as credible in the absence of any substantive evidence. Apart from everything else, nonsensical hypotheses can be formulated at a rate of thousands per second (prove me wrong!) while testing them takes a long time and a lot of money...

This having been said, should those who regard Emoto as credible wish to fund a programme of research, I am sure that responsible scientists could be found to do the work... who knows, you could win a million:)
Posted by outeast  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  08:32 AM
> However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right.

Why? Because a lott of things work? Because cars can drive? I don't think this is logic..

In my opinion quantum mechanics shows our whole atom-model is wrong; just a model that worked to invent all kind of technology...

>Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong

Uhm, isn't it also without his claims quite sure we know only a few % of what could be known about chemistry and are we not quite suire most is 'wrong'... ...might be correct according to the proven-wrong atom-model; but still wrong if you have to choose between right and wrong; we know almost nothing I think!!!

(allthough it's quite human to think we know much.. ..see classical mistakes in this).
Posted by flo  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  11:06 AM
Scientific practices are rather more dependent on the accuracy of theories of molecular chemistry than you appear to assume - take the genetic work done in the field of molecular biology, for example. If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can! Quantum mechanics in no way undermines the 'atom-model', incidentally; where do you get your physics from - Deepak Chopra?
Posted by outeast  on  Wed Feb 22, 2006  at  10:24 AM
Thank you for that last post. It reassures me that science is alive and well, and hasn't been totally taken over by new age snake oil salesman.....From the posts before I was starting to have my doubts.
Posted by God  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  01:20 AM
::blushes::

Gee, thanks God!
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  02:51 AM
>If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can!

It's just a model my dear. What we do does not prove the 'atom-model' to be correct. It's just a model that is proven to be incomplete and therefor in a way 'proven wrong'.

What you say is like saying that because we don't understand gravity exact, things would stop falling down or something...raspberry
Posted by Flo  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  05:32 AM
>Quantum mechanics in no way undermines the 'atom-model', incidentally; where do you get your physics from - Deepak Chopra?

Uhm, the atom model says atoms and like balls. And Quantum mechanics says it's loads more complex then this (days it's wrong).
I believe this is more Einstein than Chopra:-)
Posted by Flo  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  05:34 AM
Yikes, what an analogy!

Actually, your weak analogy equips me with a far better one - what you are claiming is much akin to saying that because relativity and quantum mechanics show that Newtonian gravitational theory was incomplete, it was therefore wrong. 'Incomplete' is far from 'wrong' - this is a common fallacy often favoured by anti-evolution types and other cranks.

Quantum mechanics deals with activity at the subatomic level, not the molecular levels which is where Emoto claims his effects are observable. Our understanding of atomic behaviour is such that we can (for example) manipulate the genome - something which both depends on and verifies the correctness of our model of molecular physics.
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  05:45 AM
Your story hangs on:
"incomplete is far from wrong".

But the obsolete atom-model might work to manipulate the genome, but it's not a 'correct' model of reality.


being lazy i quote wikipedia:
The Bohr model is not a complete model of the atom, and fails to explain many of the finer structures seen in atoms. As a theory, it has been replaced by quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.

did I miss your strong analogy by the way?
Posted by Flo  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  06:02 AM
Who said anything about Bohr's model? Your references to the 'atom-model' led me to understand that your referred to a model of physical relations based upon the existance of atoms... In any case, it is irrelevant: as I said, quantum mechanics is a description of subatomic bahaviour, not of behaviour at the level relevant to Emoto's claimed observations.
What's more, this is all rather irrelevant, since there is nothing about quantum theories, either, that is consistent with Emoto's DreamworldTM 'physics' - and I know of no model, obsolete or otherwise, that offers any mechanism for molecules to be able to read in any language.
smile
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  06:45 AM
Just a reminder, back on topic, that Emoto has specifically been offered the one million dollar James Randi prize to simply prove what he says he can do.

This offering SPECIFICALLY TO EMOTO on the topic of his water crystal claims has now been public for several years.

This single issue is what led me to be involved with the Skeptics Society, etc. What for some is just a topic of conversation, for me was a life changing paradigm shift.

Two years later, only rebuttals I see are constant logical fallacies and magical thinking. If Emoto's camp has something to bring to the table, then bring it.
Posted by Conrad Askland  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  12:29 PM
Owkee..:-p

So Emoto's story is most probably a hoax (I do think) ...:-(

I still do think mind/thought changes water; by intuition grin

And migth Emoto be almost as wrong in 'real' explanation as our current atom model ..!?

(ok, Bohr's model is damn old..)


>since there is nothing about quantum theories,
>either, that is consistent with Emoto's
>DreamworldTM 'physics'

I am thinking about 'reality being changed by our minds on all kind of quantum-like levels', as in not being able to just be just an observer in reality. In my dreams its DreamworldTM :p


Bye!
Posted by Flo  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  05:00 PM
I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. I am currently reading "the Hidden Messages of water" and it's actually pretty interesting. If you are a sceptic, you should really read it for its philosophical issues assuming you don't care to understand the scientific basis. I love you all.
Posted by Betty  on  Thu Mar 09, 2006  at  03:29 PM
I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs.

Was this deliberately ironic?

Anyway, who here is showing intolerance for anyone's beliefs? Arresting you, are we? Oppressing you? Nah, saying rubbish is rubbish isn't intolerance - tolerance and respect are not the same thing, you know:)

I suspect what you dislike is having people rubbisah your beliefs - and such nonsensical claims that we should have respect for other people's beliefs stick crossways in my craw. Of course people have a right to hold their own beliefs (it's your head; if you want to fill it up with rubbish that's your affair); there's no obligaton on people to respect 'em, though. As I said, rubbish's rubbish.

Furthermore, respect is something to be earned: if this book is so worthy of attention, why not spend an hour or so scanning it and stick it up on the web? I see it's a pretty slim volume - at 160 pages it'd take just 80 scans, so it wouldn't be that big a chore. I'm sure as dammit not going to put money in this guy's pocket.
Posted by outeast  on  Fri Mar 10, 2006  at  02:50 AM
Betty said:

"I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. I am currently reading "the Hidden Messages of water" and it's actually pretty interesting. If you are a sceptic, you should really read it for its philosophical issues assuming you don't care to understand the scientific basis. I love you all."

Well, golly, I love you, too, Betty. You may not have read any of the thread here on the Museum site about LifeWave patches but on it I asked a person who has been defending LifeWave to test my new mind-enhancing product by jumping out a high window. You see, my product allows me to protect anyone I am thinking about from harm.

I extend my challenge to you, Betty. I challenge you to jump out of a high window. Fear not, my amazing product will allow me to protect you from injury or death. You aren't intolerant of my unshakable belief in my product, are you? Of course not, so when can I expect you to take the Big Leap? I need to know in advance so I can be thinking about you when you jump.

My belief that this cannot fail is based on my own philosophy. If you refuse to take me up on this, you will be demonstrating your own intolerance.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Mar 11, 2006  at  04:34 AM
Since when did science become a religion? With statementes like "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 sound like some Bible beating Christians I know. Yes I know Jesus, I mean science, is the best way, I mean, system whereby humans can understand te world. I know if I dont believe in Science, I mean Jesus, (or which one did I mean?) my life will be terrible. And man I'd hate for you to hit me over the head with some of those lame science texts I remember back in high school. I recently read in my nephew's 8th grade science text that irradiating foods is a good thing because the FDA approved it. Is that the science I should believe in? Or maybe I should believe the science provided by the big drug companies that tell me "this drug is safe" and two years later I'm blind and my heart doesn't work right anymore. Yeah, that's science you can really count on. I would have loved to have had this conversation 200 years ago with you guys trying to explain to you that someday we will be able to communicate with anyone, send images and messeges etc all over the world using a small hand held wireless device no bigger than the size of a small child's hand. I'm sure you "scientists" would have ridiculed me, or even worse stoned me or burned me at the stake. The truth is that quantum science and even Einstien's science showed very clearly that that there are subtle energies and forces at work in the universe that humans are just barely beginning to discover and understand. And science is limited because it relies a great deal on human senses to "validate" and "prove" that it's real. And I have yet to meet someone who has the "senses" to pick up cellphone conversations without that handy little gadget. Does that mean it's not real or a hoax? Becuase my senses cant see or hear it? Is that what science is? Until I prove it then its not real? Again try convincing real "scientists" like you 200 years ago that cellphones will be real some day. Does that mean that cellphone technology was "baloney" or a "hoax" 200 years ago? Or were the sublties of wireless science and technology indeed there all the time and it was the limited capacities of science at the time to recognize it or even prove it? The truth is that science is not a religion and cannot be counted on so blindly as the person whom I quoted above so easily does. That's no better than some of the crazy Christians I know. There's a lot of theories that are considered quite valid and widely accepted that scientists have yet to "prove." isnt that the definition of a theory?
Posted by greg  in  New York  on  Wed Apr 05, 2006  at  11:43 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.