Mystery Archive / Rumours & reporting
The 1835 Moon Hoax: Where Did the Report Come From?
A New York newspaper ran a series about forests and creatures supposedly discovered on the Moon. What did its astronomer’s name and scientific-journal attribution actually establish?
First, what did the newspaper say about the Moon?
In August 1835, New York’s Sun published six installments describing forests, animals and winged human-like beings on the Moon. The fictional series is now known as the Great Moon Hoax. It was not a scientific report of those creatures actually being observed.
The reports used the name of a real astronomer, John Herschel, and claimed a scientific journal as their source. But Herschel’s existence and the claim that he reported discovering lunar creatures are separate matters.
We will not try to identify a lunar animal. Instead, we will explore the names and sources invoked by the story, and distinguish the number of articles from the number of independent pieces of evidence.
If the same story appears in several places, can we also find out where its claim began?
Six installments belonged to one newspaper series
Cooper Hewitt describes six articles appearing in the Sun in August 1835. The reports described a new telescope and lunar landscapes in detail, as if conveying discoveries, but those descriptions were fictional.
Six published installments should not be read as six observing teams independently finding the same creatures. The installment count tells us how the story continued, not how independently its claims were checked.
A real astronomer’s name appeared in the story
John Herschel was a real astronomer conducting research in South Africa. The Library of Congress, however, identifies the series’ supposed companion, Andrew Grant, as fictional and distinguishes the story’s equipment and discoveries from Herschel’s actual work.
A real person’s presence can make an entire account feel factual. Here, ‘Herschel existed’ and ‘Herschel observed the creatures described’ need separate support. Printing his name does not establish the second claim.
The number of reports can differ from the number of sources
The journal attribution was a claim, too
The series presented itself as material from a supplement to the Edinburgh Journal of Science. The Smithsonian Libraries catalog describes the articles as pretending to be reprinted from that journal’s supplement, when the journal was already defunct.
A scientific journal’s name printed in an article is not the same as finding an actual discovery report in that journal. After identifying who claims to cite whom, we still need to examine what the cited material contains.
Repeated reports and separate checks are different things
The Library of Congress account also describes other newspapers reprinting the story or discussing its truth. A page might present a new observation, repeat an earlier article or challenge it; those are different roles.
This does not mean we have reconstructed every link between the 1835 reports. It does suggest a useful reading question: is a page repeating an existing account or supplying separate evidence? Our activity explores the distinction with three fictional news cards.
- A series about lunar creatures
New York’s Sun publishes six fictional installments presented as Herschel’s discoveries.
- A later edition
The Smithsonian Libraries catalog records a New York edition collecting the newspaper series.
- Reading the records again
Library of Congress and Cooper Hewitt accounts distinguish the series’ construction from the actual records.
Check the date of the edition that survives
The Smithsonian Libraries record used here identifies an edition published in New York in 1859. It collected the 1835 newspaper series; those two dates should not be collapsed into one.
When examining an old book or picture, begin with its date and the type of material it is. A surviving publication records the story’s publication history. Its survival cannot turn its lunar creatures into an observed discovery.
Follow the evidence behind the repeated story
The Cooper Hewitt and Library of Congress accounts do not describe an audience consisting only of believers. Doubt and debate also belong in the story. This reading supplies no definitive count of believers or newspaper sales.
Keep two questions in view: do the reports begin with different evidence, and does the named source actually support the claim? In the activity, open the linked material rather than simply counting the cards.
What if three cards point to the same note?
Reveal an invented set of source links, then distinguish what a cited note says from the claim made about it.
Follow the source linksSources and scope
We consulted a Library of Congress account, a Cooper Hewitt article and a Smithsonian Libraries catalog record for an 1859 edition. The latter two belong to the same Smithsonian institutional group; they are not three independent institutional confirmations.
- 01Belief, Legend, and the Great Moon Hoax Library of Congress · Folklife Today, 2014 · Checked 2026-10-22
- 02The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum · 2015 · Checked 2026-10-22
- 03The moon hoax; or, A discovery that the moon has a vast population of human beings — 1859 edition, catalog record Smithsonian Libraries · SIRIS catalog · Checked 2026-10-22
The wording and explanatory diagram are original. This is not a new edition checked against the complete original newspapers or all of Herschel’s research records, and it does not reconstruct every historical reprinting route. No newspaper, illustration or book scans or historical quotations are reproduced. It estimates neither readers’ beliefs nor sales.