Gullibility Test: How Gullible Are You?

[Mitsuo]

Just how gullible are you?

Can you tell whether or not a picture has been modified? How well can you do on History and Culture trivia? There are many tests that help you determine just how gullible you are. Do you know?

This link will help you decide that.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/test2.html

For the Photo Tests:http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/tests/hoaxphototest.html

More enjoyable.....

Have fun.

There are other tests that you can take that are available on the left side of the page.

[Maciamo]

This test is a bit dubbious. Some of the answers are in contradiction to what Wikipedia or other sources say, or are badly formulated.

There may not be evidence that Marco Polo brought back ice cream (or tales of it) to Europe, but I don't think there is any proof that he didn't either. Why ask a question when nobody knows the answer ?

Before 1492, most ordinnary European people (not great thinkers or even navigators, of course) did believe that the earth was flat because the Bible said so. Again, it depends what one calls "flat". The Norse representation of the world could be called "flat" although it was like a 3-D tree carrying a more or less "flat" world, so it wasn't really flat.

As for the Dutch purchasing Manhattan, it was in fact a Walloon who did (Pierre Minuit). I know that there was no state called Wallonia or Belgium at the time, but I still find it wrong to call him "Dutch".

Whereas they lack accuracy for such questions, I got it wrong for the lake, as I thought the meaning of the translation was close enough.

Got most right though.

[Kinsao]

Wow, the one about the guys who both died on Independence Day had me fooled! Truth is stranger than fiction...

6/10 altogether: could have been worse I guess!

[Mitsuo]

I added another test. A Photo Test. This one is more enjoyable to do.


http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/tests/hoaxphototest.html


There are a total of four tests. If you decide you want to do more.

[Maciamo]

I am not sure these tests are to be trusted. I remember clearly having seen the 3 tornados (off the coast of India if I remember well) on TV. Bush with his book upside down was also in Farenheit 9/11. Faking a photo is relatively easy, but why on earth would a news channel fake a whole video of a tornado ?

I also posted the picture of the fake see-through-skirt on JREF. There are other such pictures, and although I haven't seen the real stuff I don't see why it wouldn't exist.

The satellite image of the sun setting over western Europe or that of the blackout over the North-East USA could be possible too (even if those particular photos aren't).

Why would they consider them all hoax ?

However, I cannot believe the photo of the double decker bus that fell into a hole in the road, because not a single window is broken and there is no apparent damage to the front of the bus, which would be impossible unless they had carefully laid the bus with ropes from a helicopter (and even so, I have doubt).

[Mitsuo]

I am not sure these tests are to be trusted. I remember clearly having seen the 3 tornados (off the coast of India if I remember well) on TV. Bush with his book upside down was also in Farenheit 9/11. Faking a photo is relatively easy, but why on earth would a news channel fake a whole video of a tornado ?

Well those aren't necessarily the same tornados. Yes, having three tornados occurring next to each other IS possible, but they are saying that the photo isn't real. The three tornados occurred in the Gulf of Mexico not India.

With the Farenheit 9/11 doc. That too can be modified. It's easy to do in videos. Why? you ask. Because Michael Moore has been caught in many lies. 9/11 has a lot of them. Why not make Bush look worse by having his book upside down? If you have ever seen Bowling for Columbine, you will see a cartoon resembling South Park. Even though the creators of South Park refused to do the cartoon, Michael Moore paid animators to create a South Park cartoon, Which is easy to do, without the consent of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Michael Moore is just plain dishonest.

I don't know where you're getting the news video of the tornado, since it is not mentioned in the test.

I also posted the picture of the fake see-through-skirt on JREF. There are other such pictures, and although I haven't seen the real stuff I don't see why it wouldn't exist.

No one is saying that it's impossible for it to exist. Again, they are saying that the photos are a hoax. Also, the photo on the test is not "see-through", they are supposedly air-brushed on the skirt. The hoax was that the picture of the buttocks was digitally put on the picture instead of air-brushed on. In other words, the original picture (without modification) would only contain a picture of a woman wearing a normal looking skirt.

The satellite image of the sun setting over western Europe or that of the blackout over the North-East USA could be possible too (even if those particular photos aren't).

Again, all they are saying is that the picture is a hoax. The Hoax Answers page regarding the sun setting over Western Europe said: "A beautiful picture, but it's a composite of a number of different satellite photos."

No one is saying or implying that it's impossible.

Why would they consider them all hoax ?

They consider the Pictures as the hoax. They are digitally modified, and it's asking if you can tell if they are modified or not.

However, I cannot believe the photo of the double decker bus that fell into a hole in the road, because not a single window is broken and there is no apparent damage to the front of the bus, which would be impossible unless they had carefully laid the bus with ropes from a helicopter (and even so, I have doubt).

Well, you would have to know how hard the impact was before you can say that. Also, perhaps there was damage to the front of the bus but is not visible due to the angle of the bus and how far the front is in the ground. Besides, it didn't drive into the hole. It sunk. Making the impact not as serious as it would be if it drove into the hole.

You can believe it or not. But that websites sole purpose is to debunk things, not to *fool people.

*the test is not to "fool" people but rather to see how well you do in determining the validity of a photo.

[Maciamo]

They consider the Pictures as the hoax. They are digitally modified, and it's asking if you can tell if they are modified or not.

Most of my pictures in the Eupedia or JREF galleries are digitally modified (colours, size, contrast, etc.), but it doesn't mean they are hoax. I also don't see the point of making a fake picture of something that could be real, then ask if it is real.

[Kinsao]

Oooh - I only got 3 wrong! I expected to be quite bad at this.
I got the pledge of allegiance wrong... I thought it was a real photo... if someone is left handed I would have thought they might accidentally do it the wrong way round at some time...
And EWWWWWW! is that REALLY Michael Jackson's nose in picture 9?!
The other one I got wrong was the shark... I thought that looked possible but it is a fake in fact.

[Mitsuo]

Most of my pictures in the Eupedia or JREF galleries are digitally modified (colours, size, contrast, etc.), but it doesn't mean they are hoax. I also don't see the point of making a fake picture of something that could be real, then ask if it is real.

I'm not saying that because it has been modified (Color, size, contrast, etc.)that it automatically makes it a hoax. What I'm saying is that pictures that make a person look incredibly huge compared to others on the photo could be real or could be digitally modified to look that way. Some people think it's amazing that a person can be so big, but in reality, the picture is a fake. I find it important to know whether a picture is real or not.

The main thing here is that you can USUALLY see flaws in modified pictures. Maybe its a shadow facing the wrong way or a body part that just doesn't fit right. The test is to see if you can catch those errors. It's also to see if you would automatically make the assumption that it must be real, since there's a photo of it.

It's all for fun. I find it fun to see how many I can get right, and find out that the ones that I thought were fake, were in fact real... and vice versa.

Let's just say, if a photo is modified in any way, and someone claims it to be real, with the intention of fooling you. It's a hoax (for amusement, personal gain, etc.).

[Mitsuo]

Oooh - I only got 3 wrong! I expected to be quite bad at this.
I got the pledge of allegiance wrong... I thought it was a real photo... if someone is left handed I would have thought they might accidentally do it the wrong way round at some time...
And EWWWWWW! is that REALLY Michael Jackson's nose in picture 9?!
The other one I got wrong was the shark... I thought that looked possible but it is a fake in fact.

Good job Kinsao!

Yeah, I believe I got the shark one wrong too.

Michael Jackson is very gross.

[MtDNA]

I got 6/10 for the first one.
7/10 for the second one.

[RobertColumbia]

I found a video on gullibility here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ