Customer Reviews

Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

I should have guessed what I was in for when I read the authors' bios on the dust jacket and it states of one author "Unusually talented, Mary Bennett has developed the PSI abilities that have been with her since childhood, among which is the natural gift of remote viewing" and of the other, that he (David Percy) produced the video The face on Mars: The Avebury Connection. If I may add the observation that in my opinion the authors are so totally brainless that if they picked their nose they would tear the lining in their hat.

So what's this book about then. Well this hopelessly inept manuscript is really about a colossal conspiracy theory that incorporates (among other things); faking the US moon landing(s), the sphinx, the entire US space program, the Soviet space program, the face on Mars, NASA, Stonehenge, crop circles,UFO's, alien autopsies and (you guessed it) the Roswell incident. Regrettably they missed Lee Harvey Oswald but presumably he will crop up in part 2. These dark and sinister conspirators are a group referred to, rather dramatically, as the "Masters of Infinity' and if you think you have heard this before, you are probably just confusing yourself with one of the many other conspirational groups that are in competition with each other to make our dull and boring lives even more unenjoyable.

Although I am a skeptic by nature, even I enjoy a good conspiracy yarn if the ideas are sound enough but I need not have worried about this feeble epic as all of the arguments in this book are just plain silly. Had the authors compiled a tale based on NASA fudging a few photos they may have got away with it ,but they just couldn't leave well enough alone because after the fake moon landing scenario is explored they move directly into the a series of more and more idiotic exposes, including the following:

The moon was placed in orbit around Earth deliberately (just who this was is not specified); the NASA space program was funded by Nazi gold acquired from Swiss banks; Stonehenge is actually a design for an interstellar spacecraft (unfortunately the instruction manual is still missing); the US and Russian space program engineers were in cahoots right from the beginning and (wait for it) that the Roswell crash was actually a fake UFO put there by aliens.

The authors' demonstrate a complete lack of objectivity and freely distort facts and circumstances to suit their arguments which, when coupled with the loading of every statement with bias and innuendo, creates an annoying meter that eventually becomes so disruptive that the book is unreadable after only a few chapters. There are literally hundreds of ideas in this book that are completely irrational, like using the film `Independence Day' as a technical reference (it's true!) and claiming the fact that because virtually all the lunar astronauts are alive and in rude good health, this proves conclusively that they didn't go to the moon in the first place. While most of this work is just plain stupid, but there are some parts that are more idiotic than others - here's a few of my favorites: (I have abridged these to save space)

Page 552: "The Speed of Light - Between the years of 1928-1945 the speed of light was found to be 3% slower than the (currently) accepted value...During that period many major historical events occurred...the Wall Street Crash, the great depression...the Spanish Civil War...the rise of the Nazis, the second World War, the development of the A Bomb... The activity of a significant portion of the world's population, taken together with the fluctuation of the speed of light, is truly worthy of note - especially when considered from the viewpoint of quantum physics."

(I always knew the Nazis should have used the `Speed of Light' defense at Nuremberg).

Pages 443 & 444: The authors claim that a physical upwelling of energy occurs at 19.47 degrees North latitude (over the Hawaiian islands) and then go on to comment "Does the reason that the Roswell Incident occurred in 1947 begin to make even more sense? Coupled with the fact that this event was precisely in the middle of 19 (point) 47!" As further confirmation they note that one of the Sphinx's paws is offset by 19.47 degrees.

(No, the whole idea doesn't make any sense at all. Since the division of latitude into degrees, minutes and seconds is purely arbitrary and is only accepted by international convention as a convenience; coupled with the facts that the year 1947 is only valid in the Gregorian calendar [why not the Chinese, Hebrew, Islamic, Hindu, Mayan or ancient Egyptian calendars], and that ancient Egyptians didn't use degrees at all,instead they quoted angles (like the slope on the sides of a pyramid) in terms of a gradient e.g. 1:20, it seems clear to me that the linkage of all these facts is purely illusionary.)

Page 500: The Face On Mars - Plate number 37 is the Viking 1976 photograph 170A13, which is low resolution and is one of the original pictures purporting to show the famous Martian face. Next to it is Plate 38, the MGS 1998 image of higher resolution and adjusted using new imaging techniques. Needless to say the new image looks exactly like what it is - a nondescript pile of rocks. Undaunted by this minor setback, our two optically challenged authors then declare "...we can see that indeed it is still a face."

Having said all this, the book could be seen to have some value. If you are one of those people who, when late for work uses the excuse "the voices told me to stay home and clean my guns" or you believe that the CIA and FBI spend virtually all their waking hours just "messin' with my head" then this work will have your paranoia glands pumping at maximum pressure. There is enough conspiracy allegations inside this stultifying tome to make you suspicious of everyone on the planet for the rest of the millennium and then some.

With a whacky combination of lamebrained ideas, irritating writing style, distorted facts and loopy logic, I personally found reading this book eye-glazingly painful, it's the sort of book that your analyst tells you to stop reading before it gives you some kind of mental breakdown.

How these books get published at all is the greatest conspiracy theory yet to be investigated. Absolute nonsense.

The depth of research that went into this alleged book is best exemplified by a sidebar on page 256 that chides the US for not launching communications Satellites until 1972(!).Perhaps they were busy deveoping their PSI abilities when Telstar was placed into orbit in 1962 and beamed television pictures live from the US to the UK and vice versa. They probably never thought about the true meaning of the title to the Tornados and Ventures hit recordings of "Telstar" which also came out in 1962. I would challenge them to apply the same criteria they applied to the moon photos to some of Ansel Adams landscape photographs. ("Note the deep shadows in the foreground while the mountain is brilliantly lit. Adams obviously used a big honking flash blulb") Save your money and pray thatMary Bennet et al are abducted by aliens. As previously stated, the real conspiracy they expose is their intent to foist this trash on the public.

About two years ago, fox (deliberately not capitalized) aired a TV show about how NASA had faked the moon landings and I couldn't believe that with the great wealth of scientific and engineering data available that the moon landings were faked. Since that time, I have become very interested in the Moon Hoax Conspiracy and have researched both sides of the arguments. As an engineer with twenty years of research, design and development experience in the areas of heat transfer, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics research, I felt that I could provide an unbiased scientific/engineering evaluation of at least some of the claims. One thing I should also add, unlike others who have probably provided a review without even having read this book, I can honestly say that I read this book from cover to cover (but boy was it hard to do).

The first thing the reader should notice in the prologue is that the authors make no claims that moon landings did not occur, just that the official record is not correct. Quoting, "We are not claiming that astronauts have never walked on the Moon. Our personal interpretation of the evidence is that surrogate astronauts were employed. It is our further view that the famous named astronauts for example Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Ed Mitchell in all probability never left Earth orbit, ..." These statements clearly imply that NASA had to create an elaborate hoax of massive portions to fool all worked for NASA and the billion or so people who watched the Moon landings live. The reader should take note of one last thing; there is no opposing point of view from either NASA or the scientific/engineering community in this book, only non-scientific hogwash and deceptive writing (For an example, see the review provided by William O. Wood, a former NASA employee).

Since others have provided a review of this book, especially the entertaining review by Ed Boyes from Perth, Australia, I will comment some sections that were not covered in other reviews. I think I should point out that on just about every other page I found something wrong or a complete misunderstanding of physics. I'll just cover a few.

The first thing that struck me was how could a conspiracy of this magnitude, with 400,000 people and hundreds of companies working on the project, be maintained for over 30 years, without someone coming forward and saying that the landings were faked. There are no whistle-blowers named in the book, at most just a few interviews with people who worked on the project. In all the years since the last moon landing occurred, there has not even been a deathbed confession. The authors of this book believe or at least want the reader to believe that only a select few were involved in creating the faked landings; however, thousands of engineers and scientists received data on vehicle performance, such as pressure, temperature, flow rates, acceleration and many other parameters that also had to be faked. These data were compiled and evaluated by NASA and sent out to the appropriate engineers and scientists. You can still download these engineering evaluation reports from several NASA websites or occasionally pickup an original on Ebay. There are only two possible ways that NASA could have faked these engineering evaluation reports. First, NASA had an alternative of group of engineers and scientist that provided fake data to all parties involved, but I don't how they could fool the thousands who actually designed and built the hardware and software and of course survive over thirty years of scrutiny. The second possibility is that those thousands of people were in on the hoax too, but if that were the case, that would mean that a large number of people involved.

On page 159 of the book, there is a photograph of the Surveyor 3 unmanned lunar lander probe on the lunar surface that was taken by one of the Apollo 12 astronauts. The authors state that the vehicle should be covered with dust that was generated by the Lunar Module as it lands; however, the picture they present only shows the probe's surfaces that are facing away from the exhaust plume. So of course, these surfaces are dust free. If the authors had examined ALL the Apollo 12 photographs, they would have seen that the surfaces, which faced the Lunar Module (LM), are covered with dust. Only presenting part of the story is Very Deceptive and Unprofessional!!!

On page 156, the authors attempt to convince the reader that exhaust leaving the descent engine should have produced a blast crater. Again, the authors do a poor and incomplete job of researching this topic. First of all they quote William Woods who states that the temperature of the exhaust gasses is 5000F. It is important to note, by his own admission, William Woods is a communications expert, not a rocket engine designer. This is the temperature of the gasses within the combustion chamber, this is not the temperature of the gasses that will impinge of the lunar surface. One of principles behind a rocket engine is to convert the energy of a high temperature gasses into a velocity which in turn produces thrust. Therefore, as the hot gasses leave the combustion chamber, they cool off thereby producing a fast moving jet of gas. As a result, the temperature of the exhaust as it leaves the LM's engine is around 2700 F. While this temperature is still high enough to melt rock, it is a far cry from 5000F. Furthermore, there is no analysis to show that the short contact time for landing, around 5-10 seconds is enough time to melt the surface. For example, I can stick my hand in a hot oven for 10-15 seconds and I barely feel it, and my blood doesn't start boiling. Finally, if the authors had actually examined the historical record, they would have found that Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 fame, actually states in the Mission Report that the LM did in fact actually singe the lunar surface. (You can get this report from several NASA websites, Apogee books, or sometimes it is for sale on ebay).

On page 153 the authors state "NO EXHAUST = NO HYPERGOLIC FUELS = NOT A TRUE RECORD OF AN ACTUAL LUNAR LANDING." For those that don't know, hypergolic fuels are liquids that ignite instantaneously upon contact with each other. They have the advantage of not needing a sophisticated ignition system. There are many different types of hypergolic fuels and as with all combustion processes, the color of the flame or lack of any color depends of the materials being burned. Once again, the authors fail to provide a full account of all the relevant facts.

As one can, by these three simple examples that occur in just six continuous pages of the book, that there are serious problems with book. Whether or not the authors were deliberately trying to deceive the reader, I cannot say. My final thought is save your money and a buy a book or a movie that is written by people who understand, science and engineering.

I received a copy of "Dark Moon" directly from the authors as I gave David Percy and his assistant a tour of the Goldstone tracking facility and was interviewed on camera by David in December of 1997.

I worked at the Goldstone Manned Space Flight Network station during all Apollo missions and was an eyewitness to those events. However this book is filled with half-truths and total fabrications about the Apollo program. It will only be of interest to people who like things about "Area 51," "Crop Circles," Roswell "UFO's" and other weird "happenings."

Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of photography and physics can see through the so-called "facts" presented in this fabrication. It should be considered a work of fiction instead of an independent view of a historic event.

Bill Wood, Retired Tracking Systems Engineer, Barstow, CA

A friend gave me a copy of "Dark Moon" to read while I was on a cruise this winter. I thought it might be an entertaining and interesting read but instead I found it to be the dumbest read since "Chariots of the Gods". I consider myself to be fairly open minded but I would have to have lost my mind to believe anything they say in this book. It's quite obvious to any educated person that "Dark Moon" is just a lot of baloney. This book just goes to prove that people will say anything for money. Next thing you know, they'll say they've found a second lunar module on the grassy knoll! I'm glad I didn't pay for the book because I threw it in ocean.

Mary Bennet and David Percy have put together a classic in the genre of silly books about the Space Age. They flit from one thing to the next, ranging far beyond the scope implied by the title. Although their argument is impressively silly, in part because neither of the authors seems to have passed General Science 101 and so are fundamentally ignorant of basic physics, there is much fun to be derived from picking apart their flawed analyses.

Their blurb says that they are "professional researchers", which is a fairly meaningless credential, and also that "they keep a low profile in London, their home" - if I'd written this book I'd do the same!

dmh

Though having been sympathetic to the idea behind the book at first, I cannot recommend wasting your money on such scientific nonsense. Obviously both authors have no scientific or engineering background whatsoever, and it shows throughout the whole book.
Sadly, the book failed to convince me that Apollo's moon landing was merely a hoax.

As a student of history, I find the suggestion that the Apollo moon landings were faked, as one of the most asinine ideas that has come around in a long time. NASA programs in general, and the Apollo program in particular are unsurpassed in their documentation, and openness. Thousands of photographs were taken on the surface of the moon, thousands more in orbit and ten of thousands more were taken on the Earth documenting everything from vehicle assembly, crew training, mission control, the "average" NASA engineer, testing, simulations and countless more. This visual documentation is nothing compared to millions of pages of technical documentation related to the moon landings. Additionally, thousands of scientific papers have been written about the scientific data returned by the Apollo missions. Lastly, tens of thousands of non-government and foreign reporters, journalists and photographers covered this event and no stories have ever appeared about a hoax.

Since I am not a technical person, I approached the hypothesis of the book from a different perspective. Are their facts correct? And do their arguments make sense? Typical questions asked by historical researchers. The answer to both of these questions is "NO" In some cases, they've actually lied to the reader and hidden the facts from the reader.

First of all, do their arguments make sense? No, they do not. It is inconceivable that the hundreds and thousands of engineers and scientists who worked on the project could keep silent about their government creating a moon hoax. That would imply that all these people were morally bankrupt, plus the people around the world, such as Australia and Spain, who provided technical support were also morally bankrupt. I'm sorry, I just can't believe that guilt wouldn't cause at least one person to come forward. What about the enemies of the United States? Why would they go along with this hoax? Again, it doesn't make sense.

Second, are their facts correct? Again, the answer is No. Here I'll give some specific examples. On pages 319 - 321, there is a story of an Australian women named Una Ronald who stayed up late to watch the Apollo 11 moon landing and said she saw a Coke bottle roll across the lunar surface and that the next day there were letters in her local newspaper that confirmed her story. The problem with this story is that it was nighttime in the United States and daytime in Australia when the moon landings occurred. Ask any US citizen over 45 and they will probably tell you that they stayed up late to watch the moon landings. Of course this can be easily verified by numerous space websites. The second problem with this story is that it doesn't make sense. It was estimated that a billion people watched the Apollo 11 moon landings live and only Una Roland saw a Coke bottle. This implies that somehow only Una Ronald could see a Coke bottle, during a time warp I guess, and the rest of the world is blind.

By far the most flagrant deceptions occur in the author's discussions about photographs. They make some incorrect statements that light from the sun should produce parallel shadows. First, sunlight from the sun does not travel in parallel rays, it expands slightly. Second, as any art or photography student knows and I suspect most people know as well, objects and their shadows vanish to a point. This is known as perspective. If you didn't see this in the NASA photographs, then you'd know it was fake.

To emphasis this flawed point, on page 22, the authors show two photographs of some scenery with several trees and their shadows in each photograph. The authors superimpose two parallel lines on each of the these photographs; however, when I draw a straight line on the shadows cast by the trees, they were not parallel, as they should be. The author's lines are only there to deceive the reader and not allow the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Another example of the author's deceptive ways occur on the next page, page 23. Here, there is a black and white photograph taken on the moon that shows an astronaut and the moon lander in the background and some rocks in the foreground. The authors again draw some lines to try and convince the reader that NASA is pulling off a hoax. For this case, they use a poor quality black and white photograph instead of the original color photograph. Going to a NASA site and reviewing a high resolution color scan, it is clear that the shadows indeed fall the way they should to a vanishing point and that missing shadows from several rocks and the astronaut appear.

From my perspective as a history major, these people are neither researchers, investigative reporters nor whatever they choose to call themselves, but the new snake-oil salesmen of our age.

Clearly, the topic of DARK MOON hits nerves. If true, the size and extent of the cover-up and conspiracy has dire, dire implications for us all. If it is possible to pull off a hoax so central to how we view ourselves as Americans (free, honest, adventurous, leaders, explorers, etc), then most of what we take for "reality" is simply illusion. Thus, most people would argue with every fiber of their being that DARK MOON is ludicrous, stupid, impossible, and ultimately offensive and dangerous. It becomes an emotional argument, not a rational one for most. Honestly, I can't understand how someone of average intelligence or better can read this book and not be really bothered by it. Bothered by the tremendous amount of "things" that don't add up. Other reviewers seem desperate to quote various pages of the book where they can provide "proof to the World" that DARK MOON is pure fabrication, psuedo-science, quackery, snake oil, bunk, and plain old lies. Really? Then they will state, unequivically, not to get the book; not to waste your time or money on it. Why then, did those same reviewers buy DARK MOON, read it and then review it, knowing full well the crazy premise of the book? Case in point: I truly don't believe in the tooth fairy, therefore, I don't buy books claiming existence of tooth fairies, read them, then review them on Amazon. If, in the future, a tooth fairy happens to appear on my bed looking for a tooth under my pillow, then I might explore the issue further, but not ONE SECOND before my take on reality is shattered. And that is what this book does: it shatters realities.

The biggest stumbling block for most people is the extent of the conspiracy required to hoax the Apollo missions, but the book does a good job explaining it. It rang true to me because as an alternative cancer researcher and practitioner, I am fully aware of the conspiracy existing within the "cancer industry" and modern health care in general. The programming starts with indoctrination and institutionalization disguised as "education", so that a person sees their environment through very narrow blinders. An example illustrating this point is a comment from a reviewer below about the speed of light. How on Earth would that person know anything about the speed of light other than what they might have read in a book or paper? So what if researchers and scientists have made certain claims? It's all theory and conjecture mixed with agendas, with no first hand experience, and very little pure science behind it. And when rare, brave scientists start to test things truly outside the box, their results often turn mainstream theories inside out. Modern physics is much more bizarre than any scientist would prefer, and their theories and even "Laws" are becoming less and less useful in order to advance our knowledge. So why couldn't light travel at different speeds and behave in other ways given different circumstances? Why are we so quick to yell, "impossible"?

After the programming is complete, then division and segregation is necessary. No researcher works on the big picture; they work within very specialized, isolated environments, with little knowledge of other areas. Seeing a conspiracy is, therefore, nearly impossible. Also, don't discount all the politics and ego within acedemia. Ego is essential, because no scientist wants to think of himself as a fraud or a pawn, so they will often ignore or actively suppress evidence to the contrary.

Then, there are the various financial rewards and career incentives. It takes a very rare individual to seriously rock the boat once a career is established, money and prestige are rolling in and your reputation is on the line. These pressures are much worse for those with families, for obvious reasons. Never underestimate the power of money to sway opinion and suppress the truth. In addition, everyone around you is spouting the same dogma, day after day, so the social pressure to conform becomes enormous.

Finally, if all these factors are not enough to quell dissent, and there still exists scientific people willing to come forth and expose the conspiracy, then actual threats are quite effective. First, economic based threats, then various forms of blackmail, then, ultimately, physical threats. Who wouldn't tow the party line if they thought their family was in jeopardy? Anyone heard of the mysterious deaths of over 50 top microbiologists in the last 3 years, totally defying the statistics? This stuff happens folks.

So, how could thousands of people associated with the Apollo missions be in on the conspiracy? Well, 95 percent were unaware of it for the reasons mentioned above, and the remaining 5 percent were quelled with whatever means were necessary. Does this sound impossible? The true story of Jeff Wigand (sp?), who was a higher level scientist within the tobbaco industry is an excellent example. He was one of the precious few who had the courage and the fortitude to blow his whistle and reveal the huge conspiracy and cover-up involving nicotine addiction and cancer causing additives in cigarettes. The movie was entitled, "The Insider".

So, DARK MOON is provocative, to say the least. The researchers for the book claim they began their investigations in order to DISPROVE a hoax conspiracy, but switched their focus once met with the overwelming evidence to the contrary. Interesting. Also, I don't see much of an agenda here, although, clearly, NASA and other organizations with massive levels of funding have much at stake. Also, NASA has a mickey mouse section on their website trying to deflect hoax criticisms, which is compelling in and of itself.

The true strengths of DARK MOON are the discussions of radiation and the Van Allen Belts, which really are "show stoppers". The discussion of the photos goes much more in depth than you would find on the majority of web sites. There is just much more information supporting the idea that something is amiss with the Apollo missions than the average American can fathom, and whether it is all 100 percent accurate is not really the point. An inaccurate interpretation of one photo does not tarnish the glaring anomalies in hundreds of others. Besides, for you super-patriots out there, DARK MOON does not claim that Americans did not go to the moon; rather, that the version of events that the public was given (complete with photographic and video evidence) by NASA DOESN'T ADD UP. If it makes you feel better, then imagine the USA landing on the moon in the 1950s (a la Buck Rogers) and kicking communist butt all over the solar system, but at least be skeptical of the official version which is what this book does very well.

My criticisms of the book revolve around the crop circles, the sphinx and "face on Mars" material. Interesting ideas, but poorly tied in and explained. In this sense, DARK MOON is like 2 books in one; the "first" is excellent and provocative (and thankfully the majority), the "second" is strange and confusing. Oh well, read it for yourself.

David Percy and Mary Bennet have indeed discovered a hoax, only it's not the hoax they describe in their book. The real hoax is the authors' claim to have provided a well researched case against the authenticity of the Apollo landings. When the contents of "Dark Moon" are examined with any degree of critical thinking, the reader realizes he's been bilked out of the purchase price, and therein lies the hoax.

The authors maintain the illusion of authority by learning only slightly more than their intended audience about the complex topics they discuss. Although Percy claims to be an accomplished filmmaker and photographer, he seems strangely oblivious to well-known principles of perspective and lighting. The authors' treatment of other technical subjects such as gravity, radiation, and engineering is similiarly naive.

The backbone of the authors' case is their supposedly exhaustive survey of the photographs and films that form what they call the Apollo record. But some of their contentions suggest they've not been as exhaustive as they claim. They claim the quality of the astronauts' photographs is uniformly high, suspicious for the conditions under which they were supposedly taken. In fact a large number of the available photographs are out of focus, poorly framed, poorly exposed, or have other problems.

The supposed discrepancies between the still photos and the television coverage, detailed in "Dark Moon" and its companion video, are also conclusively dismissed when one examines the whole record, not just the few seconds of video and few still frames the authors selectively present. One discrepancy in the video coverage isn't found in the raw footage the authors claim to have painstakingly studied, but instead comes from a half-hour PR film made in the 1970s and known to be sloppily edited from excerpts of the lunar surface footage.

The authors can't even manage to keep their arguments consistent from one end of the book to the other. The book's extreme length seems geared toward insuring against absorbing it in a single sitting and thereby realizing the contradictions. For example, the authors maintain that irregularities in the moon's surface wouldn't have had a noticeable effect on the apparent direction of shadows, yet in another place in the book they presume to precisely calculate the depth of a crater based on how it affected the direction of a shadow.

I brought these and many other fatal flaws both privately and publicly to the authors' attention. Not only did I fail to receive any answer to them, I failed to receive acknowledgement that they'd even been asked. When I posted them to the authors' interactive web site, the "awkward" questions were quickly removed. Apparently the authors' search for truth is not to be undermined by inconvenient fact.

Bennet and Percy remind us that the spirit of P.T. Barnum is alive and well, and that the gullible and their money are soon parted.