While reading this imposing volume (almost 600 pages), I've changed my mind from 5 to 3 stars, depending on the section. On the whole, I will say that if you're interested in space, NASA, conspiracies, Mars, the Moon, this book is something you should absolutely take a look at.
Dar Mission covers a lot of ground: hyperdimensional physics, NASA origins (with more weird, but verified, stuff than you'd expect, including "Magicians", Nazis, and Freemasons), Hoagland's personal struggle with NASA and others, various astronauts' testimonies or odd behaviour, a lot of photographic evidence - which may or may not convince you - and JFK assassination material as well. A lot of ground to be sure.
All of this is highly interesting. However, there are some minor flaws I wish to point out. One thing, which I heard mentioned before, is the abuse of quotations marks and italics. It wasn't as omnipresent as I feared, but they're still pretty much on every page; it's as though Hoagland suspect every term to have its very own conspiracy. As to the italics, the less you use them, the more efficient they are when you do use them, much like bluffing at poker. Dark Mission is almost on par with comic books when it comes to italicised words. Not a major flaw, though.
There still are some misspellings and typographical oddities (even though this is a revised edition) and someone's name is still spelled in two different ways across 2 pages.
Another thing I would have appreciated is if they had put the images where they belong in the text, rather than at the end of every chapter. This makes you go back and forth needlessly. It brings nothing (apart from the ability to have all the images at the same place for any given chapter, which isn't all that much compared to being able to see the image the text mentions right next to it) so that was a rather curious choice of organisation.
Another problem I have with this book is the photographic evidence. Not being a geologist, much less an extraterrestrial geologist, I have no background on which to judge Hoagland and Bara's claims about geological features of Mars and the Moon. That wouldn't be a problem if these authors gave the needed background, but they don't. Sure enough, mountains with angular sides don't look natural at all, as many other features do as well, but such things can be found on Earth too (meaning things that look artificial but aren't, not these specific things) and without a proper geological explanation, the reader cannot be convinced. It's not enough to claim that "no geologists we've talked to is able to explain these formations", I would have appreciated to get deeper into this (and getting deeper isn't a problem for these authors since they do so thoroughly when it comes to imaging technology and such, so why not geology?).
Moreover, my reaction to most of the images was that of perplexity. Yes, I see what they mention, but I'm rarely convinced it's what they say it is. Admittedly, some images demand an explanation, such as the "bushes" on Mars, or the glow on the Moon's horizon, which shouldn't be there since such a glow requires an atmosphere to reflect the Sun's light, among other anomalous features. So don't get me wrong, even though I've listed a few negative things, I still think this book needs to be read by many and be debated.
The material about 19.5 and 33 is both surprising and unconvincing, at times. One doesn't know whether this is just selective on the part of the authors, and that you'd find these numbers eventually if you look hard enough, or if there's really something to it (and given the evidence, there seems to be, at least in a few instances, mostly in coordinates). When it comes to star alignment and such, I'm less convinced, but that's also because I'm no expert on stars and my grasp on how unlikely (or likely) these things are is limited.
The book left me frustrated because many of these things I had never heard in the media, and if there's anything valid about their case (even if only 10% is valid, which is far less than I believe to be worth our attention in this book), then we're being softly lied to. You don't even need to go far into conspiracy theories to accept that NASA is fishy; some of the things they have said and done are plain disturbing and difficult to explain as "honest mistakes" and imbecility. This is among the stronger points in Dark Mission.
To conclude, I'll say that Dark Mission makes a convincing general case to become, or remain, suspicious of NASA. If you're hesitant, but love this sort of material, then hesitate no more: go for it, you won't regret it.
