
The Great Moon Hoax - dredmorbius
http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_great_moon_hoax
======
twic
I thought this might be this moon hoax, but it wasn't, it was a real moon
hoax, whereas this is a hoax moon hoax:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682530)

~~~
NickBusey
Oh wow. That link makes my brain hurt. Not sure if trolling or serious.

~~~
oxide
It's satire. About as perfect as satire gets, IMO.

>The Moon does not exist!

>This is no lie. Until recently, I, too, believed in the traditional,
establishment view of the moon. But any thinking person, untainted by the
biases imposed on us by the controlled media, will have no choice but to reach
the conclusion I did once faced with the facts described in this account.

Replace Moon with whatever you want.

Holocaust, Moon landing, 9/11, etc.

I love it, absolutely fantastic.

~~~
rangibaby
Ali G baffled Buzz Aldrin (the world's most patient gentleman btw) by claiming
that the moon was a hoax:
[https://youtu.be/AEnYeocVs3Y](https://youtu.be/AEnYeocVs3Y)

~~~
oh_sigh
Buzz famously punched a moon hoaxer in the face[1]. I like Buzz but he
certainly isn't the most patient.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU)

~~~
omegaham
To be fair, the guy had been harassing him for years and then posed as a
producer for a children's television show to get him to show up.

I'd be pretty mad too.

------
PaulKeeble
This is a question I have been pondering for a while. If your knowledge of
most of the world is from penny papers then how do you know what is true and
what is not?

Arguably all the newspapers/websites that do news are funded in the same way
now, advertising rather than directly by their readership throughout the
western world, everyone reads penny papers and don't have an alternative.
Since they get their news from each other, and its potentially all made up how
does anyone brought up in that environment know what is actually true?

~~~
acqq
Even the "non-penny" papers always followed their own policies. There was
always bias and assumed "truths" that weren't. As an example, "big" media
supported the "weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq and are the good
reason for war" story.

Some years before, Osama bin Laden was still "a good guy" of the media,
presented as a former "anti-Soviet warrior" and a "Saudi businessman":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interviews_of_Osama_bin_Laden#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interviews_of_Osama_bin_Laden#/media/File:Bin-
laden-road-to-peace_independent.jpg)

Then consider the support for the "moderate rebels" in Syria now.

If you want something almost 200 years old, Britain presented their wars in
support of their opium traders(!) to China, after China forbade the opium
trade, as the "enforcing" of "free trade." That's how Britain got Hong Kong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscoun...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston#China:_Forcing_free_trade)

~~~
wz1000
Don't forget Americas old friend Saddam Hussein, whom they supplied with...
chemical weapons.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_rel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Iran-
Iraq_War_and_resumption_of_diplomatic_ties)

~~~
nwah1
It seems a bit strange to say that the US supplied him with chemical weapons
and that they were lying that he had chemical weapons. Not technically
impossible for both to be true, but seems somewhat unlikely.

Is the thinking that it was bad intelligence or falsified intelligence? And
what about the other foreign intelligence agencies that supposedly
corroborated it?

~~~
acqq
Not unlikely at all. If you really believed that up to now, here's your red
pill: Long ago, Iraq bought different weapons. But after the first Gulf War in
1991, the UN Security Council required Iraq to eliminate its WMD. Iraq
destroyed it then. The UN inspectors were able to confirm that. Saddam let
them search, they have found nothing, but the USG politicians didn't care.
They wanted the war.

So what happened then in 2003:

The Independent reports in 2012:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-
whose-w...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-whose-wmd-
lies-led-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html)

"Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for
2003 invasion"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvntaL3nxEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvntaL3nxEw)

The Guardian reports in 2011: "Curveball" admits to WMD lies that triggered
Iraq war"

Other foreign intelligence agencies?

On another side of the ocean, UK and Tony Blair did their part of lies: the
"secret services" presented a work of a student, which they copied from the
internet(!) as their own "research" and a "proof":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier)

"much of the work in the Iraq Dossier had been plagiarised" "The most notable
source was an article by then graduate student" copied "verbatim including
typographical errors"

And the attack of Iraq on Kuwait, that was the cause of the first Gulf war,
was also result of the signaling that the US prepared for their ambassador
(not "don't touch Kuwait, we'll attack you then" but "we want peace" which
Saddam translated "if you do it fast we won't do any more war afterwards"):

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/06/why-one-u-s-diplomat-
did...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/06/why-one-u-s-diplomat-didnt-cause-
the-gulf-war/)

""There was no way that April could have done anything more than she did
without authority going all the way up to the president of the United States,"
said White. "Because we don’t make idle threats. If you’re going to threaten,
you have to really mean it.""

By the way, the testimony of a "nurse" about "Iraqi killing babies" that was a
direct excuse for the first Gulf war? Fake, she was the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador in the US:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_\(testimony\))

"al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern
atrocity propaganda."

See also my other post here, about Vietnam war.

P.S. As you still don't believe that there were no WMD in Iraq:

[http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-
weapons-i...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-
inspections-fast-facts/)

"October 6, 2004 - The final _Iraq Survey Group_ report is released. The
report _concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass
destruction._ "

"March 31, 2005 - The _Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities_ of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction _reports that the
intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction_ capabilities before the U.S. invasion."

The US really did it best to find _anything_ once they were there. But there
wasn't anything at all. The West did sell Saddam the weapons earlier, but he
also destroyed it all for the West. He simply didn't want war.

~~~
nwah1
Sweet, thanks for the sources. I still find myself doubting that Saddam
actually eliminated all of his weapons that, as you demonstrate, there's proof
that he had at one point. There's known corruption scandals at the UN
involving Iraq, and the IAEA officials require cooperation with the
government.

However, it seems to me that for the most part very few people would switch
from anti-war to pro-war based on this issue.

It is mostly, but not entirely, irrelevant to the moral questions surrounding
foreign interventionism.

But it is important for the historical record.

------
dredmorbius
In discussions of "fake news" and the like: pursuit of circulation by
advertising-supported mass-market "penny-press" papers saw the running of
outrageous hoaxes to pump up advertising reach. This story from 1835 and the
_New York Sun_.

The penny press are contrasted with the far more professional "six cent"
papers which sought an up-market readership.

~~~
ivraatiems
One of the interesting features of the "fake news" debate is the allegation by
the term's proponents that true journalism from high-integrity outlets is
indistinguishable from and equally as ideologically biased and tainted as poor
journalism from low-integrity, tabloid, hyper-partisan or even blatantly lying
ones.

That is, people want to compare the New York Times and Vox, Wall Street
Journal and Infowars, the National Review and Breitbart, the Washington Post
and the Huffington Post, and allege that there is no fundamental difference
between them. It reasoning usually goes something along the lines of "all
media is owned by corporations trying to make money, so they will all make
money the same way: by spinning to a narrative they think is profitable, and
ignoring things they think is not, even if this prevents them from reporting
the truth."

What people forget is that while yes, many (not all) journalistic institutions
_are_ for-profit and trying to make money, they have an entirely different
approach: They believe more people will pay them for their dedication to the
truth, and to at least an attempt at unbiased reporting, than will pay them to
push out screed. They play a longer game; one that, in fairness, isn't always
as successful in the short-term as the sensationalist yellow-journalism model,
but one that has persisted over time nonetheless.

To make the comparisons I made above is to ignore the fact that the entities
being compared have fundamentally different ideas about what they're for and
what their goals are.

~~~
laretluval
> They believe more people will pay them for their dedication to the truth,
> and to at least an attempt at unbiased reporting, than will pay them to push
> out screed. They play a longer game; one that, in fairness, isn't always as
> successful in the short-term as the sensationalist yellow-journalism model,
> but one that has persisted over time nonetheless.

How can you tell the organizations playing the long game from those playing
the short game? What makes you think the ones you've listed as "high-
integrity" outlets are such? Is there a difference in incentives or management
structure that would explain the putative difference?

All journalistic outlets have an incentive to make people think they are
playing the long game. What evidence do you use to decide which are really
adopting that strategy?

~~~
dredmorbius
Criteria of Truth is an area of epistemology (the study of truth) which
addresses this question. In any narrative, there are some assertions which are
independently verifiable, others which are not. We also rely on credibility
and reputation, and most especially, on the response of individuals and
institutions to being called out on false reporting or narratives.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth)

The full story is more complex, and ultimately boils down to the observation
that drawing reliable and factual narrative is expensive, and that we employ a
great many heuristics to reduce these costs. Some of these heuristics are
categorised as "logical fallacies" (generally informal), though on closer
examination, many of the fallacies are better considered as "shortcuts to
truth assessment which sometimes, though not always, work".

It's also hugely useful to recognise that there are a number of different
primary modes of communication, two in particular of which are _dialectic_ vs.
_rhetorical_ speech. Dialectics _seeks to arrive at a truth_. By contrast,
rhetoric _seeks to persuade of a viewpoint_. Rhetoric is not _necessarily_
bad, though it is inherently suspect (an observation which dates back to Plato
and his criticisms of the Sophists, from whence: _sophistry_ ).

I'm also inherently skeptical of any argument which arises from an ideological
viewpoint. Truth doesn't arise out of ideology, ideology _may_ arise out of
truth. Which gives me pause to such publications (otherwise generally sound)
as _The Economist_ which is _fundamentally predicated_ on the propogation of
free-market ideology (see the paper's Prospectus).

Close observation and vigelance are required. And no source is perfect. The
primary question is whether or not the organisation is responsive to its own
errors.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth)

------
oxide
This is an excellent read, if you're skipping to the comments for a recap, I
suggest reconsidering checking out the article. It's a wonderful story of
making things up, the reach of early mass media, and the effects of that reach
on the wider public.

The article mentions such a hoax would not have been possible before 1830 or
so, because the technology wasn't around to spread information in such a way.
They also point out that due to the presence of newsboys selling papers around
New York City, nearly the entire city heard about the "lunar discoveries"
around the same time, making it a shared experience.

It reminds me of the way we receive information now. When stories hit, they
hit everywhere at once, but also stagger out over time.

You might see a story online first, then hear it on network or cable news
later that evening.

The next day, it's in print. You might discuss it on social media, in a
comment section on a website, etc. Only to find yourself discussing it again
when it's on TV in the evening with those close to you.

It's a neat look at the power of mass media back when mass media was still
budding on the vine, nearly 200 years ago. It only became more interesting
when I began to consider the influence and power of modern mass media.

\---

p.s. To think that a group of clergymen had written to the falsely accredited
astronomer to see if there was any way science might let them spread gospel to
the lunar people, hah! I had a good laugh over that.

p.p.s. I've always loved reading about hoaxes, thanks OP for sharing this
link, this is why I use aggregators! Much appreciated, I'll check out the rest
of the site after I've finished this one.

p.p.p.s. I also found myself learning some new words while reading this.
credulity, for example.

\---

Excuse the formatting, but I wanted to discuss this as well:

>Yale College was alive with staunch supporters. The literati — students and
professors, doctors in divinity and law — and all the rest of the reading
community, looked daily for the arrival of the New York mail with unexampled
avidity and implicit faith. Have you seen the accounts of Sir John Herschel's
wonderful discoveries? Have you read the Sun? Have you heard the news of the
man in the Moon? These were the questions that met you every where. It was the
absorbing topic of the day. Nobody expressed or entertained a doubt as to the
truth of the story.

What a neat perspective on how this affected a college campus.

It spread like a virus, infecting all those who came into contact with it, no
one doubted or questioned the information, and all likely continued to spread
it themselves as fact.

It had to have become a game of Telephone at some point, wouldn't you think?

As the information got further away from the "source" it seems like it would
be susceptible to having details omitted, twisted, changed entirely or
remembered incorrectly.

~~~
PaulKeeble
CCP Grey does a wonderful video
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc))
on mind germs and how they make us angry and how they spread. Its a short but
interesting look at how these stories spread.

~~~
dredmorbius
Quite excellent, yes. A fave.

