Who Built the Moon? [Paperback]

Christopher Knight (Author), Alan Butler (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 1, 2007

The authors of Civilization One return, bringing new evidence about the Moon that will shake up our world. Christopher Knight and Alan Butler realized that the ancient system of geometry they presented in their earlier, breakthrough study works as perfectly for the Moon as it does the Earth. They found a consistent sequence of integer numbers that they can apply to every major aspect of the Moon; no such pattern emerges for any other planet or moon in the solar system. In addition, Knight and Butler discovered that the Moon possesses few or no heavy metals and has no core—something that should not be possible. Their persuasive conclusion: if higher life only developed on Earth because the Moon is exactly what it is and where it is, it becomes unreasonable to cling to the idea that the Moon is a natural object—an idea with profound implications.
 

Product Details

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: Watkins (February 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1842931636
• ISBN-13: 978-1842931639
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (49 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #38,085 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #60 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Astronomy & Space Science > Astronomy
  • #86 in Books > History > Ancient > Early Civilization

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

59 of 69 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Sounds weird but this is a very sensible book December 11, 2006

By N Smith

Format:Hardcover

There is some true nonsense amongst the reviews on this book. Because it sounds weird a number of people have dismissed it out of hand - without any valid reason given at all. One individual quotes the book as claiming that; "the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun." The reviewer than announces with great pride "This is false, of course. The diameter of the moon is 400 times smaller than the diameter of the sun; but that does not mean the moon, as a whole, is 400 times smaller. The moon exists in 3 dimensions, not one. For example, the mass of the moon is about 27 million times smaller than the sun".

This is typical of the disingenuous logic of certain critics who seem not to have actually bothered to read the book at all. The book makes it very clear that this reference is about observational astronomy i.e. the size of the moon's disc seen the sky is the same size as the sun because it is 400 times smaller but 400 times closer to the earth. The book goes on to deal with the relative mass of the two bodies in some detail.

The numbers and calculations given can be easily checked by any reader with average numerical skills. This book is indeed challenging but a little bit of honesty and objectivity would go a long way here. My I recommend that future reviewers forget thier prejudices and read the book with an open mind.

135 of 163 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Too Many Coincidences To Be Chance Alone. October 15, 2005

By Harvey L. Gaspar MD

Format:Paperback

Coincidence that the moon's diameter is exactly 400 times smaller than that of the Sun? Coincidence that the one second arc of the Moon's rotation is exactly 100 Megalithic Yards? Coincidence that the Moon exactly blocks the Sun's disk during a solar eclipse so that the Sun's corona can be studied? Without which much of Einstein's work would not have been confirmed. By the way the Moon is also 1/400 of the distance from the Sun which Isaac Asimov described as being 'the most unlikey of coincidences'. That the Moon is almost exactly 1/4 the size in diameter of the earth (which makes it the largest moon for a planet this size) and without its precise posisition at present, life as we know it would not have happened? Too many coincidences to accept as pure chance for me. And the fact that so many of the relationships can be expressed in whole rounded integers (within 99 % accuracy)in the metric system which we have blindly accepted as of modern origin which it apparently is not. All in all, an exciting and easy read even for this non mathmatician. The authors conclude that the moon is not a coincidence of blind nature and offer several (3) answers, which they wisely do not force upon us. The most important thing is that they do force us to think a bit more about what we have accepted blindly for centuries just because it seemed to fit the science of the times. Just as the 'flat earth' did before it.

Two criticisms: 1. The book cover, and several areas in the book state that the Moon is 1/400 the size of the moon. This should have read as the 'diameter' of the moon's disk and the Sun's disk for clarity. 2. Page 41 last paragraph states that the Moon's circumference in Megalithic Yards was divided INTO the total of seconds of arc in the earths orbit. It should have read BY the total of seconds of arc as correctly reflected by the answer given. The math is correct and simple and hard to refute.
And by the way, none of these or similar coincidences are found with the rest of the planets or moons in our solar system. Another coincidence?

Perhaps our scientific community should be willing to look a little closer to home for some of their answers as to the origin of our planet and solar system and in particular to the source of our miraculous Moon.
Both thumbs way up on this one. Maybe more is coming?

83 of 104 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars education you say? April 27, 2006

By Dr. French

Format:Paperback

Hey, Mr. Gillis, aka "Real Scientist": I've gone to school, done Graduate work, and have become a doctor. So along the way I have indeed taken quite a few courses on physics, astronomy and the like. I've also always been interested in space travel, astrophysics, and geology personally. The one thing I can say, unequivically, is that my "formal education" has not only not satisfactorly answered many of the big questions, but it is often in error when answering many of the small questions. Once you achieve a good grasp of the subject matter, it becomes painfully obvious that the most revered, most popular theories, are not proven in all circumstances. There has to be some revision, at the very least, which science is loath to undergo. Our moon is a good example. The mainsteam explanation of the history, geology, and physics of the moon, in my view, is far more comical and outlandish that any put forth here by Chris Knight. He may not be totally correct either, but his ideas are moving us towards a much more workable theory given the data. What I do find rather ironic of Mr. Knight's position, is that as a self proclaimed quasi-expert on the moon, he absolutely dismisses the various controversies of the Apollo missions, landings and sample collections which are so crucial in framing his controversial theory. He often takes NASA data and press releases at face value, which is a very risky practice, given NASA's track record of cover-ups, half truths, fraud, collusion, and corruption. An excellent book on these issues is, DARK MOON, which goes more in depth and is more meticulous in its research than Knight's book. Also, he chooses his final theory from three that he has "narrowed down", but once the reader has followed the author down this rabbit hole, it seems odd that he believes it much more likely we were manipulated 4.5 billion years ago by time traveling human beings from the distant future rather than by periodic intervention from other intelligent species. Why take this position? Why the aversion to the possibility of other intelligent life in the Universe? It seems rather silly given the already bizarre nature of the book's premise. Regardless, I truly wish the moon was not so bizarre, because the implications of its true history and relationship to us may be really very disturbing, Alien or not. This book is worth the read if you have a bit of courage because it will spark discussion. I give it 5 stars for this reason, not do to overall quality compared to other books within its genre.