12 of 23 people found the following review helpful
Very well researched, evidence-based and thoroughly readable,
This review is from: One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space (Paperback)
This is a far better book than detractors will want you to believe. A lot of vested interests do not want you reading this! It is far better than the very sketchy efforts of Phillippe Lheureux which I found unconvincing and rambling. This is a great book which raises many interesting questions, but does so carefully and methodically. The author brings up much interesting data which points to fakery. He examines the historical and political context of the whole Apollo programme which is significant. It is not as one-sided as you may expect - he is in places writing as if he is almost hoping that the detailed satellite imagery which may be possible in the future (to identify accurately the lunar "junk" left from the missions) may prove him wrong - so he is not stating his case dogmatically, instead presenting much salient evidence which points to the lunar landings being the hoax of the century simply because there are so many holes in the official accounts, so many omissions, errors, inaccuracies, inexplicable oddities and coincidences as to make the whole affair too suspicious to go unchalleneged by any reasonably minded thinking person. Highly recommended, and very readable, this book should be compulsory reading for every person who still subscribes unquestioningly to the great Moon Myth. Keep an open mind! We all WANT to believe in fairy tales, it is human nature after all, but occasionally a jolt back to reality is not a bad thing. Don't believe the naysayers - this is a very good piece of work.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Sep 2009 18:02:31 BDT
Absolute rubbish from beginning to end. No one with a science based education or the first clue about photography will be taken in.
All of this has been thoroughly de-bunked many many times, try http://www.clavius.org/index.html for starters. The moon landings were one of man's finest achievements. If you want a true testament to the sheer amazing brilliance of the Apollo program spend your money on A Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Sep 2009 14:55:16 BDT
You obviously do not have a scientific background. And none of it has been debunked, at all. There have been various attempts but every one is either childish (most of them) or leads full circle - such as, the insistence that all the proof we ever need is the moon rock they brought back. Seeing as there can be no independent verification that it DID come from the moon it's evidence of nothing except perhaps wishful thinking on the part of those willing to accept the word of the conspirators as proof. Try watching the movie Capricorn One - it shows very simply how it could have been (and probably was) done.
They were SOOOOOOOOO brilliant on the Apollo missions that they used an untried and totally untested lander (as if any sane adult believes for a moment they would attempt a mission like this with any single piece not exhaustively tested...) and landed it perfectly, first time - despite the very simple basic scientific fact that it is totally impossible for a craft of that shape to fly in that manner. As a demonstration try balancing a ball on top of another ball. Go on, I dare you. :-) The evidence that they did in fact not fly it at all is legion, not least the lack of engine noise over the radio link. The "excuse" for that (such as it is) is that the craft was in a vacuum - which is true enough, but that would not have prevented transmission through the metal frame of the vehicle itself and thereby into the cabin where the "radio conversation" was taking place.
Also, how much do you know about photography? Not much, obviously, if you think that those perfect moon shots were taken by people using a camera strapped onto the front of their suit which they couldn't even see the viewfinder of! Those weren't digital cameras where all you had to do was point and click; you had to set the aperture and exposure etc manually - how do you know what settings you need if you cannot even see your sight picture?
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2009 14:48:21 GMT
I am afraid SmokeNMirrors that it is you that are to be found wanting in understanding. Just to pick up on the point you mention about the lander being untried and untested. So all the testing that went on on earth,with various Nasa astronauts flying it, and the tests in Earth orbit with Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 in lunar orbit, were all faked as well were they?
Sorry, but you're batting on a very sticky wicket, and not convincing anybody. Either you - and this book's author are right - or about 400,000 people involved in the space programme are lying....
I know who I and most people back. Give up now and spend your time doing some serious research on space
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2009 19:17:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Dec 2009 20:52:13 GMT
"So all the testing that went on on earth,with various Nasa astronauts flying it, and the tests in Earth orbit with Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 in lunar orbit, were all faked as well were they?" The lander which was taken to the moon was not the same vehicle in which the astronauts trained. It was a different vehicle, and it had never been tested, even unmanned, before the actual Apollo missions.
"or about 400,000 people involved in the space programme are lying." Didn't spend any time in the military, did you Tim? Don't know what "compartmentalisation" is? Very very easy to keep big secrets secret until it no longer matters; think "Manhatten Project".
"I know who I and most people back." Once again you seem to think that being in a majority therefore makes you right. Unfortunately, as history shows all too clearly, the majority are rarely right - until far too late.
"Serious research on space". Such as?
Posted on 21 May 2010 16:34:37 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 21 May 2010 16:52:39 BDT]
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Oct 2010 12:08:08 BDT
"land landed it perfectly, first time - despite the very simple basic scientific fact that it is totally impossible for a craft of that shape to fly in that manner. As a demonstration try balancing a ball on top of another ball. Go on, I dare you. :-)"
Could I just point out that flying in space is probably different to flying here on Earth.
"Also, how much do you know about photography? Not much, obviously, if you think that those perfect moon shots were taken by people using a camera strapped onto the front of their suit which they couldn't even see the viewfinder of! Those weren't digital cameras where all you had to do was point and click; you had to set the aperture and exposure etc manually - how do you know what settings you need if you cannot even see your sight picture?"
Photography is a hobby of mine so I can add a bit to this point. Lets not forget that the ORIGINAL photographs were very dull and grainy - due to the camera and the radiation in space - the brilliant, crystal clear photos we see today have been DIGITALLY ENHANCED as we now have that technology. I would suggest that anyone who has a camera with a manual control mode have a go at taking photos without using the viewfinder. With a bit of time, patience and practice I'm sure you'll get some fairly well exposed photographs.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›