digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at discoverychannel.ca

Top 10 Science Hoaxes of All Time!

discoverychannel.ca — Some of the greatest scientific hoaxes of all time ... typically pulled off until technology caught up with the scope of the hoax. From Stone-age tribes found in the present day to the announcement that blondes will be extinct in 200 years.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jquipp, on 04/01/2008, -7/+18Does anyone really believe the U.S. didn't land on the moon in '69? Come on ... seriously.
    • Hayaemsay, on 04/01/2008, -4/+2Initially I became interested into a few odd things surrounding the footage, then I realized it didn't matter.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/01/2008, -10/+6There's a video of them rigging a window to make it look like the earth is far away, time stamped to while they were supposed to be walking on the moon.

      Plus Richard Nixon was President, and the years leading up to it all everyone was under the firm beleif the Russians were more advanced since they sent up the first satellite, animal, and man.
    • Lososaurus, on 04/01/2008, -3/+5I have a hard time believing it too, I mean sending men to the moon with just a ***** slide ruler sounds ridiculous, but they did make the atomic bomb back in 45, so you never know.
    • fugazied, on 04/01/2008, -4/+6Well it is a little strange we don't have a research lab or space port up there in 2008, some nearly 40 years later.
      • rodrigo74, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7This is the same as saying that you don't believe that your dad once went to Mexico, 40 years ago, because now in 2008 he is not in China.
        • DarkDx, on 04/01/2008, -3/+3More like: your dad went to mexico 10 years ago walking and now he "can't" (and let's just say that he's young).
        • johnnysaucepn, on 04/01/2008, -4/+6No, more like "your dad went to Mexico 40 years ago and now he can't afford to".
          • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -3/+2Despite it being ridiculously cheaper and easier, and him having more money than he did then.

            And it's not just him. No-one can afford the trip.
        • rodrigo74, on 04/01/2008, -5/+1.
    • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -8/+3It's extremely strange that no other country has made the trip reusing similar 1969 technology, which by now would be drastically cheaper and far easier to implement, as is all other technology from 1969. Unless, that is, you believe that lunar travel is the only technology to fail to advance and become cheaper since 1969.

      If computer technology hadn't advanced since 1969, wouldn't you find it odd?

      Personally, I find it likely that the lunar landings were a psyop to influence the USA's morale and global standing, much like 9/11 was a psyop to create neverending, highly profitable war.
      • rodrigo74, on 04/01/2008, -2/+7Cold War Is Over.

        That's why.
        • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -6/+2That doesn't explain why no other country has made the trip.

          You make it sound like the only reason humans ever had to travel to the moon was to win the cold war.

          Russia has achieved everything the USA claims to have achieved as far as space travel goes, except a manned lunar landing. It doesn't make any sense that Russia was never able to afford to use the same 1969 technology to land a man on the moon, unless it just isn't possible to get to the moon using 1969's technology which I think is very probably the case.
        • DelayedEraser, on 04/02/2008, -0/+5well actually groovemaster, apart from all the inspiration and pride and fulfillment of the spirit of exploration and all that intangible stuff – the stuff that America and the world got to enjoy thanks to this very real accomplishment of some very real and heroic people, which you seem to have no respect for (and I'm not from the U.S., incidentally) – there is NO real reason to go to the moon. it's a hunk of dead rock, and there's very little to be learned there beyond the first few geological samples. there's no reason to go there except for the balls-out gusto of it.
      • tomz17, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5You make the erroneous assumption that going to the moon using current technology would be significantly cheaper/easier. While some of the materials and processes may in fact be cheaper, the bulk of the costs are in the man hours required to make sure everything works. No other country has done it since because it is STILL REALLY REALLY REALLY FRIGGIN HARD!!!! In fact, it will take the us almost two decades to get BACK to the moon!
    • willskillz, on 04/01/2008, -5/+3Here's the big FOX documentary that proves the moon landings were a hoax. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-113893511 ...
      • tomz17, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3I hope you are using the word proves loosely here... the documentary proves nothing, and has been debunked multiple times.
        • willskillz, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1really? did you have a source for your statement? I think you might be confused w/ the 911 debunkers. I'm talking about the moon landing.
      • DelayedEraser, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2among the best debunkings, this one:
        http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
    • rootneg2, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4Retroreflective corner-cube array. How else did it get there? All other arguments aside, I have never seen this issue addressed by moon-hoaxers.

      I can see how *maybe* one or two Apollo missions were faked in the stress and determination to beat the ruskies, but there were definitely people up there at some point. If anybody ever goes back, for better or worse they *will* find an American flag planted in the soil (as well as a bunch of other trash...).
      • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -4/+1It could have been put there by an unmanned mission. I could just as easily say "Who put the Mars Rover on Mars? That proves humans went there!", and it would be just as irrational an argument as the one you just made.

        "If anybody ever goes back, for better or worse they *will* find an American flag planted in the soil (as well as a bunch of other trash...)."

        That's like saying you'll go to heaven when you die because it says so in the bible. If the USA went to the moon as is claimed, there'll be a flag planted in the soil. If they didn't, there won't.
        • rootneg2, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3the best computers back then were no more powerful than your calculator; in short, robotics *sucked*

          anything that would be capable of accomplishing an unmanned mission like that would probably be as big as a refridgerator, at that point it's probably *easier* to send people.

          and i wasn't trying to pass of that last sentence as "proof" of any sort, just re-establishing my assertion/belief.
          • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1"the best computers back then were no more powerful than your calculator"

            Very good point, but it could well have been put there later. For all I know, it may not be there at all.

            I had a look around and found this page which tells the tale of how Neil Armstrong placed the mirror on the moon...

            http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr. ...

            ...which contains this picture of said mirror (which looks fake to me, although I'm sure to you it looks completely normal and acceptable)...

            http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/llr ...

            And although we can now build computers in our homes that have several thousand times the computing capacity available in 1969, no other country on the planet has been able to use 1969's technology to fly a man to the moon and back, despite every country being able to replicate every other countries major technological achievements since 1969.

            In my opinion, it's common sense that at least one other country would have made a manned flight to the moon and back using 1969's technology - which would now be tremendously cheaper and easier to implement - to travel to the moon if it was possible to do so.
          • rootneg2, on 04/01/2008, -1/+6groovemaster:

            We know it's there because we bounce lasers off of it nearly every day, and have been since it was installed. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists, researchers, and even lowly grad students, that can personally attest to this. (as far as the picture goes; the moon has *very* harsh lighting conditions, so of course it looks weird; it would be more "fake looking" if it looked like a "normal" photograph)

            In fact, I'm sure that a well-funded, dedicated amateur astronomer could independently construct a laser/telescope rig to verify this. It would might cost upwards of $10k or even $100k, but there are plenty of silicone valley millionaire astronomy nerds out there spending well more than that on personal observatories.

            The reason that nobody has gone back is lack of motivation. Really the only reason we did it in the first place was to one-up the russians, very little scientific knowledge was actually gained, and not much would be gained now by a manned mission either. When there was a perceived military justification, the project could pull in *lots* of funding; and the US has the deepest pockets around when it comes to military funding. I, and I think most other scientists that would work on such a project, would much rather see the same money go into robotic space exploration of other planets (*maybe* a manned mars mission); which would yield far greater returns on knowledge for the money. We're done showing off, and that's all that putting a man on the moon was or will be.
          • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1It's still a fact that it could have been installed later by an unmanned mission. You may not like it, and it may not help strengthen your argument, but it could have been.

            So you agree that the only reason America would have to land on the moon is to brag about how awesome and amazing the USA is.

            Why wouldn't any other country want to send people to the moon for the same reason, especially given that 1969's technology should be tremendously cheaper and easier to implement within the last decade?

            Are you telling me that you believe that in hundreds of years time the record of human history will show that one country was able to make several manned flights to the moon and back within the space of a few years, then completely stopped altogether while the rest of the planet concluded that there no point in replicating the achievement?

            Your argument is basically analogous to saying "Edmund Hillary was able to reach the summit of Everest, and that's why no-one else ever bothered trying. I mean what scientific use is there in climbing the world's tallest mountain? It's been achieved once. There's no point in doing it again."
          • rootneg2, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4well, yes, it could have been installed later, but then all the laser-ranging experiments up until that point would have to have been faked as well. The data would have had to have been fabricated, and it would be an amazing coincidence that the past faked data matches up so well with current data, even predicting the (at the time, unknown) effect of a receding moon due to energy lost by tidal forces of the ocean.

            "So you agree that the only reason America would have to land on the moon is to brag about how awesome and amazing the USA is." basically, yes. And 100 years really isn't all that long in the big scheme of things. Nothing on the order of the Cold War as a technological motivator has happened since then. And yes, technology has gotten better, but mostly in terms of precision, and safety. The cost of launching something into orbit (and by proxy, to the moon) really hasn't dropped all that much since the Apollo missions; Newton is a tough adversary.

            Also, Everest is quite different; the economic, technological, and political hurdles are orders of magnitude lower than a manned moon landing.

            As far as other countries go; China seems to be fairly determined to prove itself. They still don't have nearly the same amount of funding, nor the same motivational pressures to succeed as the USA/USSR during the Cold War, but they certainly have the technological and scientific prowess. I actually have a lot of confidence that they'll put a man on the moon within the next few decades (or at least century). I suppose only time will tell if they can verify our claims, but if China makes it to the moon and finds Armstrong's boot-prints, I think it will be pretty solid evidence that we succeeded back in the cold war. (building a robot to make boot-prints and leave behind specialized lander modules, rovers, etc. all sans people, seems pretty silly, even for a moon-hoaxing theory).

            In all truth, yes there really isn't any way to independently verify, outside of the evidence that NASA/the gov't provides, until China gets there, but I still think it's pretty unlikely that we hoaxed it *all*.
          • Groovemaster, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2"Also, Everest is quite different; the economic, technological, and political hurdles are orders of magnitude lower than a manned moon landing."

            You missed my point (I assume intentionally), which was that anything worth achieving by one nation is worth achieving again by any other nation.

            As far as economic viability goes, I flatly refuse to believe that any of the major nations on our planet is economically unable to replicate any achievement made by any other nation at the end of the 60s using the same technology they used back then.

            You're asking me to believe that one affluent nation can make SEVERAL trips to the moon and back within one decade, but no other affluent nation can make ONE trip within the next three decades, even using the same antiquated technology (which would now be tremendously cheaper and easier to implement) and I don't believe that's a reasonable request to make.

            I appreciate the discussion, and wish you all the best. :)
          • tomz17, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4@Groovemaster. Stop spewing the misconception that it's both CHEAPER AND EASIER NOW. It is not! If you need any evidence of this look at the temporal and monetary budget allocated to getting the USA back to the moon. It's going to take well over a decade, and an absurd amount of capital, despite the fact that our "technology has advanced so far in the past 40 years."

            It was not replicated by any other country because it requires a ridiculous output of resources with very little return on that investment, especially if you are country #2, #3, #4, etc. to land a man on the moon. In fact, the resources required are a nice fraction of the national GDP of even the healthiest economies on the planet, INCLUDING THE USA!

            The corner cube reflectors could not have been easily deployed by an automated 1960's era system. The data from those could NOT have been forged before the corner cubes were placed, because we learned a lot of things we didn't know about the orbital mechanics of the moon FROM THAT DATA. The corner cubes are definitely there now (anybody can get data back), and the data they are currently returning matches historical data perfectly.

            I'm a scientist... Frankly, the amount of data supporting a manned moon landing in 1969 DWARFS the small and easily debunked misconceptions the conspiracy theorists are holding onto.
          • rootneg2, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2I understood your point with Everest entirely; i'm saying that it's not a valid comparison with which to make the point. The circumstances surround the American moon landing were very, very unique; and not easily duplicated, as would be possible for any *individual* with a bunch of extra time and cash lying around to summit Everest.

            And again, echoing tomz17: it really hasn't gotten all that much cheaper. Rocket fuel and manufacturing costs are still just about as expensive (heck probably moreso now with oil prices rising...) and that's going to really be the limiting factor here. technological advances will just make it safer this time around and we'll be able to gather more data, but it will only negligibly cheaper. It still costs about the same to toss a 200lb hunk of flesh out of earth orbit.

            I'm sure there are a few other nations that might be *able* to; but something on the order of the Cold War is needed to drum up enough public support to get the necessary political machinery rolling in order to appropriate such funding. The Cold War, and the ensuing pissing contest with the commies is the *only* reason we went to the moon; scientific discovery was a nice ancillary benefit but even then the returns were not very great. For another country, or even this country, to send a man to the moon would be an utter waste of resources (especially given the state of robotics), and this is recognized by almost every scientist that would work on such a project.

            Nothing then or now matches the *liquid, disposable* assets of the US military during the Cold War; the public (even the international public) thought that the very future of the world as we know it was at stake; the success of the moon landing *directly* impacted them, and so passing off spending bills for random dick-off technological marvels was easy.

            Right now the only way that a moon-landing project could cut through all the red-tape, bureaucracy, checks&balances, lobbying groups, oversight committees, etc. is if terrorists were trying to get to the moon. The "War on Terror" is the modern "Cold War", only this time the militarization of space is not a strategical asset. If we (not just the US, UN, and everyone else involved) had been redirecting the money from the war in Iraq, we would probably have a man on *mars* by now; but like I said, this offers no strategical advantage, so there is no money for it.
    • DelayedEraser, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2I strongly recommend the Bad Astronomy debunker of all the primary claims that the landing was faked:
      http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
      It settles most of these questions pretty flatly.
  • nwoantibody, on 04/01/2008, -22/+10Top 10? How about top one.
    Some people believe fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel of entire buildings simultaneously so that the buildings fall symmetrically at free fall speed and keep burning for thousands of degrees months after the fact. How about a third building falling at free fall speed after no plane hitting it, and they say fire did it.
    How about that for ***** ignorant public?
    What else to expect from people who don't know where their ass stands on the map.
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Not sure what that last line means, but likewise.
    • trogdoor, on 04/01/2008, -5/+7Damn, and I had my money on the Creationist nutters being first.
      *sigh
    • djbon2112, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5learn2science, and read this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ...
      • Akufen, on 04/01/2008, -4/+2Popular mechanics.. you've got to be kidding. How is it that people defending a ridiculous story come up with even more ridiculous explanations to defend it? Why do they have to lie and distort? Why do they leave out the essentials and base their arguments on a straw-man? Why is all this not clear to you? I'll tell you why, because you sat on your ass and took anything at face value instead of thinking for yourself and actually LOOKING INTO what has actually happened.
        • djbon2112, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Wait, so the people who use SCIENCE and REASON to defend their position, are the ones who cannot be believed and are defending a "ridiculous story" with "more ridiculous explanations", but the ones who know NOTHING about science and physics, who ignore evidence to suit their purposes (believing the conspiracy theory), and who believe inane conspiracy theories, are the critical thinkers?

          *****, my brain is overheating.
          • Akufen, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2But you base your entire argument on an illusion brought to life by TV. Do you really think the popular mechanics article is based on science and reason? Do you really think millions of people question the official story because they are conspiracy theorists? Do you really think we don't base our arguments on science, physics? Are you really that naive? Are you really that ignorant? I don't think you are but I wouldn't be surprised either.

            What about architects and engineers for 9/11 truth?
            The list of papers on that website alone is larger than the combined number of papers done across the world that support the official story. And you're telling us there's no science behind it? That alone shows how ignorant or disingenuous you are.

            If you really want to talk about science though, maybe you could start by telling us how hot the steel was before it collapsed? If science can explain the collapse, than one of the things we should know is the temperature of the steel, so we can figure out if the fire caused the collapse, right? I'll tell you one thing, the temperature is known, so no excuses please. We'll continue our scientific discussion when you're able to dig up those numbers.

      • argusbargus, on 04/01/2008, -3/+1Read the response: "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin. Read the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defen ...
        • djbon2112, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3'emeritus professor of theology"

          So, once again, another person with no background in engineering or science is trying to discredit and disprove people who do? Here's the people PM talked to:

          "Drawing on interviews with engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and investigators,"

          I think I know who I'm going to believe.

          You idiots are worse than the religious. Oh, the wool you pull over your own eyes in ignorance.
          • argusbargus, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Dr. Griffin interviewed the same set of people (including the aviation & military experts who participated in the 911 events), except he tackled the issue from a purely logical and informed point of view. What is your point?

            It's called faith when you believe in something contrary to the facts. Good luck with you and your faith. BTW, what do you call your religion?
    • Hangly, on 04/01/2008, -5/+4It's too soon. Post that in 4-5 years and everyone will be digging you up.
      • Di0genes, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5It is probable that the evidence will become even more conclusive over time. These people are scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists, nothing more.
    • cygnus2112, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super ...

      "The fire occurred at the Sofa Super Store, which was composed of a 42,000 ft² (3,902 m²) single-story steel trussed showroom building with a 17,000 ft² (1,579 m²) warehouse building located behind the retail space. The fire started at approximately 7:00 p.m. in a covered loading dock area built between the showroom and warehouse buildings which was attached to both buildings. At 7:41 p.m. the showroom area of the store experienced a flashover while at least sixteen firefighters were still working inside. The flashover contributed to the rapid deterioration of the structural integrity of the building, leading to a near-complete collapse of the roof just minutes later."

      http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/images/11 ...

      But steel trusses can't bend due to fire! Except that shown in the picture..

      http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=6832

      Capt. Ralph Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the blaze was the hottest he could recall in three decades of firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle," he said.

      http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/092107/met_14 ...

      Steel trusses are prone to failure in fires because the steel weakens when heated. In the Charleston fire, witnesses reported the roof collapsing. The coroner said the firefighters died of burns and smoke inhalation.
      • Akufen, on 04/01/2008, -5/+1Hey cygnus, if steel trusses were so prone to failure, how come NO steel highrise ever collapsed from fire? Yet on 9/11 3 buildings fell down in close to free fall speed. Thanks for again underlining what a ridiculous amount of ***** you need to believe before the official story can stand.
        You do realize that the temperature of the steel in the WTC is known? And you do realize that this wasn't high enough to cause the collapse?
        • cygnus2112, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4Depends on the support structure. All steel will bend with high heat. Let me repeat: all steel will bend. Talk to any structural engineer or blacksmith to confirm "the truth."
          • Akufen, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1High heat.. but the temperature on 9/11 wasn't high enough to weaken the steel. Yet there's evidence of molten and evaporated steel? How do you explain that? NIST couldn't, they just ignore their own evidence and conclude something different. They even admit to altering the evidence in their simulations so the observed events were reached. I'm sure you know what that means.
      • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -3/+1the steel used in that furniture store is nothing like what was in the towers. thin bar-joists that are only holding up a roof do not need to be as sturdy as the very thick I-beams used in skyscrapers to support the weight of every floor. a roof collapsing is in now way similar to an entire building falling.
        • cygnus2112, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and there was only a concrete roof supported in the store's case. Now add 20 floors and let's see those sturdy very thick beams deal with a little heat and pliability.

          Tip: Don't use chicken wire and a big concrete block on top to dispute real engineering.
    • willskillz, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1I'm with ya buddy.
  • melcan, on 04/01/2008, -23/+2Yes, they should add the US moon landing as a Hoax. Are you telling me that technology have deadvance so much that we were only able to go to the moon once? The radiation will kill everyone on board the space shutter if we leave the earth's protection zone, even now we still can't go past that zone, and the moon is past that. Do you think we could have landed on the moon with the tech in 69?
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 04/01/2008, -1/+13Switch "technology" with "large amounts of funding from the government" and I'd think you'd have your answer.
    • zenerdiode, on 04/01/2008, -2/+18"Are you telling me that technology have deadvance so much that we were only able to go to the moon once?"

      Huh? We landed and astronauts walked around the surface 6 times. We orbitted the moon with manned and unmanned spacecraft multiple times.

      "The radiation will kill everyone on board the space shutter if we leave the earth's protection zone, even now we still can't go past that zone, and the moon is past that."
      Where'd you get that little nugget of science from? The Discovery Institute? The astronaut received little more radiation than airline passengers on their trip to the moon.

      "Do you think we could have landed on the moon with the tech in 69?"
      Why not? Has orbital mechanics and physics changed in the past 30+ years? To the best of my recollection, physics hasn't changed much since the days of Newton other than refinements to include relativity, quantum mechanics, and fancier stuff like string theory...all of which matter very little when you're just trying to figure a simple 2-Body orbit problem.
      • Gonasadude, on 04/01/2008, -1/+9*clap* You just owned that idiot. He can't even form a decent sentence, yet he thinks that he knows more about science that the rest of us on Digg.
    • sloonark, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4How delightfully ignorant.
    • fakekevinrose, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3please, never post again.
      -the internet
    • Sludgehammer, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1What I don't get is, how moon landing conspiracy theorists think that the US managed to fool the entire Soviet Union, but random people on the internet can easily find proof that we never landed on the moon. Does anyone think for one second that the Soviet Union would miss such a huge chance to embarrass the US as proving that we never landed on the moon? It would be the PR coup of the century, and forever cement the US (and as such capitalism) into second place in the space race.
    • melcan, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1I was just picking the number of the top of my head, I couldn't remember how many times, my history is kind of rusty. But my point is why no more moon landing?

      "Some sources have suggested that in 1969 NASA's technology was not sufficiently advanced enough to put a man on the moon and get him back to Earth alive. It is said that the computing power used by the Apollo craft would have been less than that contained in a modern pocket calculator. One author, Bill Kaysing, who reputedly worked for NASA just before the time of the Apollo launches says that NASA commissioned a feasibility study to check the odds of completing the moon landings successfully. The odds were reported as being 0.0017% chance."
  • muscles68, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2i like the potato server, wonder how much traffic it would create lol
  • zenerdiode, on 04/01/2008, -1/+14Cue the "Global Warming is the biggest hoax" flamewar!
    • cygnus2112, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/01/doomsday- ...

      Fourteen members of a Russian doomsday cult have come out from the cave they were hiding in while waiting for the world to end, according to emergency officials in Moscow.

      The cave dwellers, members of a group calling itself the True Russian Orthodox Church, said they were waiting for the end of world, which they believed would come sometime in May.
  • loopyloopy, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5cold fusion FTW
  • pearcey, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2I just sent an email to "grandma" using the email address Grandma_G@gmail.com .... wishing the old bat a happy birthday!! hope she replies!! ;-)
  • leerayIG88, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6moon made out of cheese.
  • chopsticks765, on 04/01/2008, -1/+8Pluto is a planet? hoax!
  • Dystisis, on 04/01/2008, -7/+1The crop circles have not been explained... a few have been concluded to indeed be hoaxes, but incidentally they also look ***** compared to all the others. There are a lot more of these popping up than what could be possible if it was just bored farmpeople. I'm not saying it's alien stuff, just saying it ain't pranksters going around doing all these with grammatical precision (and without breaking any straws). Look it up.
    • radix2, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2The pranksters are not just bored "farmpeople". http://circlemakers.org/ is a good site to get an idea for the type of people who makes them. Even as skeptical as I am, I still think it is at least possible that crop circles could be formed by a natural phenonemon - I just think most (the vast majority) are man made)
  • dudefather, on 04/01/2008, -6/+5durr hurr how about that Magic bullet that killed JFK?

    we've had the evolution, 9/11 and moon landing ones, might as well complete the set
  • paulc87, on 04/01/2008, -6/+6Haha, add global warming to that one
  • gnomead, on 04/01/2008, -3/+7I was expecting to see Intelligent Design and Homeopathy.
  • Hangly, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3N-Rays.

    Not technically a hoax, but still hilarious.

    The so-called N rays (or N-rays) were a phenomenon described by French scientist René-Prosper Blondlot but subsequently found to be illusory.

    In 1903, Blondlot, a distinguished physicist working at the University of Nancy, perceived changes in the brightness of an electric spark in a spark gap placed in an X-ray beam which he actually photographed and he later attributed to a novel form of radiation, naming it the N-ray, for the University of Nancy. However, no other researchers seemed able to reproduce his photographs. Blondlot, Augustin Charpentier, Arsène d'Arsonval and many others claimed to be able to detect rays emanating from most substances, including the human body. Most researchers of the subject at the time used the perceived light of a dim phosphorescent surface as "detectors", although work in the period clearly showed the change in brightness to be a physiological phenomenon rather than some actual change in the level of illumination. Physicists Gustave le Bon and P. Audollet and spiritualist (Phrenologist?) Carl Huter even claimed the discovery as their own, leading to a commission of the Académie des sciences to decide priority.

    The "discovery" excited international interest and many physicists worked to replicate the effects. However, the notable physicists Lord Kelvin, William Crookes, Otto Lummer and Heinrich Rubens failed to do so. Following his own failure, self-described as "wasting a whole morning", US physicist Robert W. Wood, who had a reputation as a popular "debunker" in the period, was prevailed upon to travel to Blondlot's laboratory in France to investigate further. Wood suggested that Rubens go since he had been the most embarrassed when the Kaiser asked him to repeat the French experiments and then after two weeks he had to report his failure to do so. Rubens, however, felt it would look better if Wood went since Blondlot had been most polite in answering his many questions.

    In the darkened room, Professor Wood secretly removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, yet the experimenters still said that they observed N rays. He also secretly replaced a large file that was supposed to be giving off N rays with an inert piece of wood, yet the N rays were still "observed". His report on these investigations, published in the September 29, 1904 edition of Nature, suggested that N rays were a purely subjective phenomenon, with the scientists involved having recorded data that matched their expectations. By 1905 no one outside Nancy believed in N rays.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-rays
  • 6L6GC, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0Rael from #1 looks a lot like Steven Wright.
  • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2Gotta include gravity, magnetism and fat-free frozen yogurt.
    • rootneg2, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5...not to mentions that I *still* cannot believe it's not butter.
  • PoeticExplosion, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1What the heck is number five trying to say? The double negative in the title was confusing enough, but the explanatory paragraph is... not explanatory.
  • airsters, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1@ macsuxwindowsux
    Oh yeah, would u care to provide a link to this "video"
  • infra172, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3#1 Cow farts are causing the Earth to warm.

  • topgigmedia, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4War on Terror?
    • willskillz, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1That might not be the biggest hoax, but definitely the costliest.
  • Seren2399, on 04/01/2008, -3/+5Evolution.
  • fritzek, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0Potato web server is not a hoax. I dont know if the person who actually did it, lied, but I dont know why that shouldn't work. Surely theres no x86 high power demanding processor, but you dont need that to respond to a http request. http://d116.com/spud/index.html
  • willskillz, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5The goodness of the Federal Reserve?
  • finalcloud33, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Dinasaurs
  • jayscot, on 04/01/2008, -3/+5"Man-Made Global Warming" (now known as climate change)
    • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -3/+2we can't call it a hoax yet. people still believe in it so we have to wait until it proves wrong, otherwise they get all pissed off and bury the ***** out of you. :P
      • vikingcoder, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Gravity is a hoax!

        You can't post that until it is proven wrong though, or you'll be buried for being an ignorant sod.
        • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2sorry, I didn't realize that global warming was your religion but after checking your profile I see that it is
  • detokaal, on 04/01/2008, -3/+1#2 Piltdown man. Just one of many examples of Darwinists lying. There is no fossil record to support a change from species to species except repeated lies like this example.
  • WorcesterM, on 04/01/2008, -1/+0Evolution is the best possible explanation of human existence, but it is not proven yet, how come all species found today are perfect with no intermediates?
    • Sludgehammer, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1What about ring species? Those seem like the perfect example of intermediate species.
    • Trace, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1WorcesterM:
      Check out www.drdino.com
  • PharmacyGuy, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0The moon one is always fascinating. To me that's going to be one that we're always going to question, but may never get a certain answer unless you believe we really did land there.
  • brexians, on 04/02/2008, -1/+0NICE!!
  • dancercotillion, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0The article is decent, but the comments from the ignorant masses at the bottom are the best part.

    For instance...
    "there is way too much weird stuff to believe in these days does anyone really even believe in eveolution anymore? There is no scientific evidence that evolution was even happened monkeys turning into humans come on lets get real!!!"

    I lol'd. Hard.
  • dancercotillion, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0The article is decent, but the comments from the ignorant masses at the bottom are the best part. For instance...

    "there is way too much weird stuff to believe in these days does anyone really even believe in eveolution anymore? There is no scientific evidence that evolution was even happened monkeys turning into humans come on lets get real!!!" I lol'd. Hard.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.