iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Some of history’s strangest deceptions borrowed the credibility of science, photography, spectacle, or broadcast journalism. But “people believed it” can mean anything from a few influential believers to a real audience reaction: the evidence does not show that everyone accepted the Great Moon Hoax or that the War of the Worlds radio play caused a nationwide panic.
What are the strangest fake news stories people actually believed?
These four cases stand out for how differently they traveled: a newspaper’s invented lunar reports, photographs of fairies, a purported fossilized giant put on display, and a fictional radio drama. Each drew on something people could find persuasive at the time. Their histories also show why it matters to distinguish a false story from evidence that particular people believed it—and from proof of widespread belief.
| Story | Medium | Credibility it borrowed | What the evidence says about belief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Great Moon Hoax (1835) | Newspaper reports | Scientific reporting and real astronomical interest | Some newspapers treated the reports as authentic; others called them a hoax. |
| Cottingley Fairies (1917–1920; disclosed in the 1980s) | Photographs | Photography and the endorsement of a prominent public figure | Arthur Conan Doyle accepted the images as genuine; the girls’ later accounts were not entirely aligned. |
| Cardiff Giant (1869) | Physical display | Scientific authority, religious interpretation, and commercial interest | The object attracted attention and competing interpretations; the available account does not establish that everyone accepted one explanation. |
| War of the Worlds (1938) | Radio play | News-style presentation and contemporary anxieties | Some listeners were frightened, while archival letters record varied reactions—not a representative measure of a nationwide panic. |
Did people really believe the War of the Worlds broadcast?
Some listeners were frightened by the 1938 radio adaptation, but the familiar story of a nationwide panic is not established by the archival evidence described by the U.S. National Archives. Letters and telegrams preserved in Federal Communications Commission records show differing reactions. One child reported that his mother and sister became frightened and that the family turned off the broadcast; other correspondents said they listened calmly or mocked the reports of panic.
J. V. Yaukey of Aberdeen, South Dakota, wrote that he listened serenely and was entertained by the play. His colorful recollection is one listener’s letter, not a survey of the audience. It demonstrates that at least one listener was unalarmed, not how most people reacted. The National Archives’ account is careful for good reason: individual accounts document experiences, but they do not by themselves establish the scale of a public response.
#1 Best Overall
The National Archives’ account of the broadcast and listener correspondence was published in 2003 and last reviewed in 2022.
How did the Great Moon Hoax make invented science sound plausible?
In 1835, the New York Sun serialized reports attributed to a fictional writer, Andrew Grant, and presented them as observations accompanying astronomer John Herschel’s real expedition in South Africa. The reports cited the Edinburgh Journal of Science and adopted the tone of scientific news. They began amid genuine public interest in astronomy, then described increasingly extraordinary lunar landscapes and life, including winged humanoids.
Rank #2
Other newspapers reprinted the reports, but they did not all accept them. The Library of Congress notes that some papers treated the story as authentic while others called it a hoax. The more fantastical installments helped prompt skepticism, and accusations took weeks to catch up with the story. That mixed record makes the popular claim that the public uniformly believed the reports too broad. The story reached readers who wanted to believe, doubt, or debate it.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Richard Adams Locke, widely suspected of writing the series, denied responsibility in a letter published by the New York Evening Post. He wrote, “I beg to state, as unequivocally as the words can express it, that I did not make those discoveries.” The denial is evidence of what Locke publicly said, not proof that he was not the author.
The Library of Congress’s account of the Great Moon Hoax describes the story’s publication and the divided contemporary response.
Why did the Cottingley Fairies photographs persuade adults?
Between 1917 and 1920, cousins Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths staged photographs showing fairy figures. Elsie drew the figures, and the girls used hatpins to hold the cutouts in place. The National Science and Media Museum says Elsie initially regarded the pictures as a practical joke, while Frances wanted to support her claim that she had played with fairies.
The images nevertheless won influential adult belief. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle accepted them as genuine, helping turn the photographs into a famous example of photographic deception. Elsie’s 1983 letter to photographic journalist Geoffrey Crawley disclosed that all five photographs were fabricated. Frances, however, continued to insist that one image was genuine. Their later accounts therefore did not align perfectly, even though Elsie’s disclosure identified all five pictures as fakes.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The National Science and Media Museum’s history of the Cottingley Fairies recounts the staging and later disclosure.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What made the Cardiff Giant more than a simple fake?
In 1869, a farmer in Cardiff, New York, claimed that a large object found on his property was the fossilized remains of a prehistoric giant—possibly a biblical one. The episode is described in a scholarly article as a scientific hoax, but the object’s meaning was shaped by more than a question of whether it was real. Scientific authority, religious belief, and commercial display all influenced how people interpreted it.
That mix makes the Cardiff Giant a useful example of how a deception can attract attention and dispute without every observer accepting the same explanation. The surviving scholarly account focuses on changing interpretations and market relations rather than establishing a count of believers.
The abstract for the 2006 historical article on the Cardiff Giant examines its commercial, religious, and scientific contexts.
Recommended Free Tools
What these deceptions reveal about belief
There is no reliable figure in these accounts for how many people believed each story, so ranking them by a supposed number of believers would create false precision. What can be compared is how each story made its claim persuasive and what evidence survives about audience response.
Quick Recap
- Borrowed authority: The Moon Hoax imitated scientific reporting; the Cottingley images drew on the apparent evidentiary force of photography and Conan Doyle’s endorsement; the Cardiff Giant invoked scientific and religious interpretations; the radio drama used a broadcast format that some listeners found alarming.
- Different kinds of evidence: Newspaper reprints and criticism show divided reactions to the Moon Hoax. The Cottingley photographs and later disclosures document both fabrication and influential belief. The Cardiff Giant’s history emphasizes contested meanings and commercial display. The War of the Worlds correspondence records individual reactions, not a population-wide count.
- Attention is not the same as belief: A story can be widely discussed because readers or listeners are curious, skeptical, amused, or alarmed. Its reach alone does not show that everyone accepted it as true.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
