Customer Review

4 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars A Sarcastic Tone!, 26 April 2011
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)
One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski

The debate concerning the Moon Landings is often emotional and derogatory. The official narrative is supported and sustained by an intolerant lobby that often fails to answer skeptical questions empirically and dispassionately. On the other side, are the skeptics that fall into many different polarized groups. The moderate skeptic that bases skepticism on reasonable doubt, is often ignored.

One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski clearly suffers from translation, not from spelling errors or grammatical faults but from a sarcastic tone that dominates most of the prose.

Gerhard Wisnewski clearly sees the issue of landing on the moon as politically charged with dangerous implications that still resonate today. If this is the case then Gerhard Wisnewski should deal with the subject with a more authoritative and less flippant tone.

Interestingly enough, the writing begins to improve as Gerhard Wisnewski explains the dangerous world of 1960's America. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War and CIA sponsored terrorism.

The idea that the Moon Landings were faked is not such a shocking assumption because in training, simulation and rehearsal, the moon landings were already being faked or more correctly simulated. As Gerhard Wisnewski explains it would have been irresponsible for NASA not to have rehearsed and simulated most aspects of the Moon Landings.

There are two arguments that are often heard in support of the official narrative and both have nothing to do with science. Yet these two logical fallacies block any attempt at a rational and empirical debate because by there very nature, the arguments paint doubters and skeptics as unworthy of debate.

The first is that, as a quarter of a million people worked for the Apollo program, it would be impossible to keep faked Moon Landings a secret.

Gerhard Wisnewski talks about this at length in One Small Step? He uses the word "cellular" to explain the different cells that worked on a "need to know basis". A better and more succinct explanation would be "compartmentalization", which was used very effectively to keep the Manhattan Project secret from the world while employing 130,000 people. Gerhard Wisnewski fails to mention the compartmentalized success of the Manhattan Project.

The second is, if the Soviet Union had known that the moon landings were faked, it would be impossible believe they would not have exposed the fraud to the world.

Again, Gerhard Wisnewski talks at length about the collaboration between the Apollo program and the Soviet space program. It is often the case that opposing political parties may appear for public consumption to be in passionate contradiction, while behind closed doors objectives and ideologies are often mutual. This is particularly true of establishment European and American political parties. Tony Blair's Labour Party followed to the letter the corporate friendly policies of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party just as Barack Obama extends the criminal policies of George Bush Jr.

After October 1962, the political situation between the Soviet Union and America had changed. This culminated in the signing of the Test Ban Treaty on August 5, 1963 in Moscow. Premier Khrushchev later that year, admitted the Soviet Union was in a "difficult position" due to a poor harvest and in response the US administration prepared to send three million tons of American wheat to the Soviet Union. These examples of American and Soviet reciprocity expand on the many reasons why the Soviet Union would not want to purposely sabotage intergovernmental relations. The question also remains that secrets beget secrets within national security states.

Turning to science, I have one question concerning the Moon Landings that leads me into a degree of skepticism concerning the official narrative.

That question is Radiation, meaning the Lunar Radiation, Solar Flares and the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

NASA's response to the questions of the Van Allen Radiation Belts and Solar Flares is that the hazards are minimal. NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts were very low.

An official NASA article from September 8, 2005, is called "Radioactive Moon", it states;

The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

Finally, would it have been easier to fake the Moon Landings than to do them in reality? The answer is yes because the infrastructure was already in place to make simulations appear as genuine.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Aug 2014 08:25:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Aug 2014 08:35:43 BDT
Common Sense says:
Hi nmollo,

'Radiation' is a word that conjures up images of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, cancer, mutations etc, and hence it's on that basis that moon hoax films and moon hoax books claim radiation would have been fatal to the Apollo astronauts. They know that the mere mention of radiation would put doubts in reader's minds, but it's a made up claim! You can see this for yourself by searching this book or any moon hoax book for the name (and quotes) from an astrophysicist or space radiation scientist from any nation (specifically those with no reason to support the USA) who says radiation would have made them ill, much less being fatal. You wouldn't find any, which should ring your alarm bells regarding the validity of such claims.

For example, here is what Dr Van Allen (the discoverer of the belts) said about such claims. Quote: "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense".

The main radiation problems for space travel are cosmic rays, which are constant, and solar particle events (SPEs) rather than solar flares, where SPEs are only a problem when headed our way and therefore are rare.

When cosmic rays collide with the atoms in a solid surface, they produce a spray of secondary particles which can be just as harmful as the cosmic rays themselves. This is what that NASA article was reporting. But you miss the other part of the 'story', which is when cosmic rays hit the hull of space craft and produce a spray of secondary particles inside the craft. Hence google search "Space station radiation shields 'disappointing'" and read the article of that title.

Quote: "Radiation inside the ISS, and the now defunct Mir, is caused when the fast, heavy ions that make up cosmic rays collide with the aluminium hull, releasing a shower of secondary particles into the living quarters".

So as you can see, a solid surface being hit by cosmic rays will result in sprays of secondary particle radiation, and therefore our proximity to that surface (whether it's the surface of the moon or the hull of a space craft) exposes us to that secondary radiation.

Where this becomes a problem is for long duration missions, like those to mars and back which would take at least 2 years with current rocket technology, and therefore either we need to find better shielding solutions (eg. design the hull of the craft as a tank to store the fuel, water, waste etc, which surrounds the astronauts) or develop rocket engines that will shorten the journey time significantly, or a combination of both.

I hope that addresses some of the concerns you had regarding radiation.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details




Location: London

Top Reviewer Ranking: 412,408