Customer Reviews

One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

Reading information like this should be all people need to see that the entire story of the moon missions has been a fiction.. If it were real, there wouldn't be so many 100's of problems with the science, photos, video, statements, timeline, etc..

Well written, interesting, objective, and dynamite. The author shows how the Soviets and USA turned the space race into a propaganda race, and how Disney's movies influenced elected government officials to believe space travel is possible and easy. Eventual success was "necessary" to keep the tax money coming in and also makes us proud of our countries.
After reading this book, we began to research what the encyclopedias say about the temperature on the moon. Before 1979, it is listed as fluctuating between +280F and -350F. Now, moon temperature is mysteriously left out of the Van Ostrand's Encyclopedia. Reader's Digest March 2009, page 159, says NASA is trying to develop a boot that will withstand the -350F on the moon! Why can't they just wear their PF flyers like they did in the 70's?
Ask your computer what the space suits were made of in order to withstand this tremendous temperature. "Lycra, spandex, nylon." Hey, I'll just stay right here on earth!
Here's an illustration you can do at home:
The diameter of Earth is approximately 8000 miles. Use an 8 inch plate to illustrate Earth. The diameter of the Moon is approximately 2000 miles. Use a golf ball to illustrate the Moon. The distance between Earth and the Moon is about 240,000 miles. Call that 240 inches or 20 feet. Place the dish and the golf ball 20 feet apart.
Place some tiny object about 1/2 inch from the plate. That represents the International Space Station which is 250 miles away.
If you believe the Soviets told the truth about Yuri Gagarin you really need to read this book.

This is the best book I've encountered on the Apollo program. The author has found some interesting anomalies in the Apollo "evidence" that I have not seen elsewhere, but his main strength is his emphasis on what could be called the project management issue.

It is a matter of public record that the government built an extremely expensive, elaborate simulation facility at Langley, Virginia (home of the CIA), to mimic as far as possible the planned Apollo missions. Moreover, the author asserts that all of NASA's systems were designed to handle simulations exactly as the real thing--both simulation and reality were treated as equivalent inputs as far as all other parts of the system were concerned. Given this comprehensive simulation strategy, it would have been only "one small step" to skip the actual mission, and simply re-run the simulation as if it were real!

The author probably should have elaborated on this. For example:

After the fatal Apollo 1 disaster, Congress made clear that it would not tolerate another such tragedy, especially if due to engineering shortcuts. Yet at the same time, Congress was substantially reducing NASA's budget and losing patience with its schedule slips. From an engineer's point of view, NASA had still not solved two very hard problems: (1) to land a craft on the Moon and return it safely to earth, and then (2) to send a mammal (preferably a primate) to the Moon, subjecting it to the harsh radiation environment of deep space and the Moon's surface, then return it to earth alive and verify its good health. No ethical engineer could send humans to the Moon without first solving these two problems, and no project manager would televise a human moon landing live without first solving them.

Logically enough (in a sense), NASA project managers decided that passing off a simulation as the real thing was a less risky option than sending 3 men to their deaths on live TV.

To this day, the United States has never landed a craft on a celestial body and returned it safely to earth. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

To this day, no one has sent a mammal into deep space or onto a celestial body, returned it to earth alive, and verified its good health. Unless you believe in the "moon landings."

Read this book, then ask yourself: What would a bureaucrat do in this situation, especially if squeezed from behind by a military-industrial-intelligence complex that tells him, "Failure is not an option"?

Excellent work and a very in depth research into the Apollo program. I actually could not put the book down until I finished. Growing up in the 60's and 70's we all took the moon landings for granted. Interesting that over 40 years later, the truth is surfacing and NASA cannot stop the surge of folks who do not believe that the lunar landings took place, or have serious doubts. Therefore they are flooding the media with "space" and potential future missions "back" to the moon and eventually to Mars. It's all propaganda as they are too embarrassed to admit their sin, and no doubt they have a "team" of folks out there trying to make people who don't believe in the lunar landings look like "fools".

There are several other scientific and engineering goofs Wisnewski and other Apollo truth seekers are missing, which truly put the nail in the coffin of this massive fraud committed by NASA. One is the engineering joke called the "LEM" designed by Grummen. The shell of this "tin can" is so thin that it would not even hold the required pressure to sustain life within the extreme vacuum of space without literally blowing to bits. There are also several design flaws in this contraption that once you see them, you know without doubt it was only a "stage prop". My personal favorite is the "moon car". NASA had to really push it here with that folding hot rod! The design flaws on that contraption are obvious as well, but it performed just "swell" on the moon...

The sad truth is we bought into the lunar landings, and are now paying dearly for this massive cover-up. Clearly, the faked lunar landings is a major "head blow" to the entire scientific community at large. And once folks realize what NASA was truly up to back in the 60's, the halls of the "scientific" world will never be the same. If they faked the moon, then they have faked Mars. Just like the lies of "monkey-to-man" evolution that were pumped into our schools back then (and still linger today), we reap what we sew. Science, or rather "science" so falsely called, is unraveling fast and many "scientists" will need to make career changes.

Some of the funniest things from the Apollo program:
-The lunar sky is pitch black as there are "no" stars visible from the moon. None.
-Michael Collins, the commander of the CM module does not remember seeing "any" stars, yet they had to navigate by the 37 navigational stars, or they would be lost in space forever.
-100% oxygen is 100% dangerous 100% of the time.
-Buzz Aldrin had 6 `beef sandwiches' packed for his trip to the "moon".
-If you look closely at the "lunar soil" or what they call "regolith", it looks just like mortar mix, and probably was.
-The Earth viewed from the moon per NASA photos is "tiny", but Earth is 4 times larger than the moon.
-ALL of their flight plans and trajectories were off. I have studied them closely and this is quite comical to say the least.
-Apollo 17 brought back a whopping 250lbs of "moon rock" but had no place to put it inside the LEM.
-NASA thought it was best to send completely different "teams" to the moon. Seriously, its not a good idea to send a pilot from the first successful "lunar landing" to safely land on the moon, which is a moving target with massive gravitational anomalies. Heaven forbid!
-Charlie Duke admits to spending more time learning "geology" (NASA was busy duping the USGS) than learning to fly the tin can called the "LEM".

Every high school student should be required to read this book. I also recommend "NASA Mooned America" by Ralph Rene. Rene also misses major engineering "errors and omissions" made by NASA.

Conclusion: The lunar landings are a pathetic joke. Lets hope the next generation won't be as gullible as we were. Moreover, lets make sure we guard ourselves from future scientific fraud.

" THE MAN IN THE STREET DOES NOT NOTICE THE DEVIL EVEN WHEN THE DEVIL IS HOLDING HIM BY THE THROATH " - Wolfgang Goethe. Most people have never heard of the Van Allen Radiation Belts...They have no clue of ' power-to-weight-ratio ' ( ' power to mass ratio ' ). I'd bet my life: " Apollo Program " was/is a HOAX...and nothing else but a S.F movie made by Stanley Kubrick. IF I'm wrong, what I have read in my life is useless, the College ( and the whole School ) is a waste of time...the Knowledge is NOT Power and the Ignorance is Bliss !!! PS: Today ( 42 years later ), the Mankind Still Do Not Have the Technology to live the Earth Orbit ! Wake-up, people ( from ' The American Dream ' - see George Carlin ).

Having spent the last 7 years (on and off) researching the Apollo missions I went from laughing at the conspiracy theories to being 100% certain that the moon landings never happened. The political climate at the time was very different to today and while many people in the western world take comfort in believing in mans greatest "claimed" achievement you only have to look at the evidence to figure this stuff out.

In 1969 the VW Beetle was considered a modern car. The moon is 248,000 miles away and since the last Apollo mission NASA has not traveled further than 300 miles in space. That should really say it all....yet there is so much more scientific evidence available that one does not even need to look at the ridiculous multi shadowed pictures or any of the other overwhelming amount of evidence that something was not right.

I have found that people who refuse to believe the moon landings never happened also tend to prefer not to study the evidence available instead resorting to "you're crazy" or "it's easier to send man to the moon than to fake it"

Clearly that's not true.

this book was great! So much information, and all of it was so interesting. My husband would often read passages aloud, we liked it so much. It will REALLY make you wonder if we ever went to the moon!

The research offered here is thorough, but the writing is overly dramatic, awkward and obviously not that of a native speaker of English. How much fault lies with the author and how much with the translator is problematic, but regardless, the editor should have rectified it. If you can overlook this, there is much information to be found here.

Oh dear - looks like the previous reviewer is suffering from a serious case of 'dogmatic thinking'. Judging a book without reading it, and basing your opinions on the received wisdom of contemporary culture, is not very wise. The author of this book deals with all the issues the previous reviewer raises. Look at the five 5-star reviews (as of October 2008) on Amazon.co.uk for other views. Get wise, and get informed before our governments turn us all into one-dimensional vegetative consumers.