Customer Reviews

Who Built the Moon?

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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?

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.

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.

It was a good book, but the ending kind of slowed down and wasn't nearly as good as the first two thirds of it.. He ended up with this weird "chicken and egg" scenario that didn't quite wrap up his ideas in my opinion.

His idea that man in the not too distant future could have developed a way to send massive machines back 4.6 billion years to take material from the young Earth, then build a moon from it in orbit, doesn't reconcile easily.

If our moon, being the size it is and distance it is, was required for "life" to arise on Earth.. Then how did life come into being, and eventually allow humans to evolve, that would one day send machines back to build it? If the moon was required for life to happen, then there would be no man if there was no moon, since there would be no man to create the moon, since there was no moon?

I know.. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it too. I am curious if the Moon might really be hollow though..

The fact that the moon is the only object in the entire solar system (universe) which does not rotate on it's axis. What are the chances of that? And other revelations make one wonder. And now scientists are getting behind a new theory promulgated by the History channel about the formation of the earth and moon 4.5+ billion years ago. Obviously, there was (superior) intelligent life on earth (and in the Americas) long before the pyramids were built (and we can't duplicate that feat even today!) and Columbus discovered America - RIGHT? I guess sooner or later we learn that everything we learned in high school is pretty much FALSE. Watch out for the NWO!

Some of the information presented is irrefutable. The mathematical "coincidences" (which actually are no coincidence) make it so that natural theories of the moon's creation are very highly unlikely. Yes, they go into a sort of science fiction area when discussing theories of the "who built it", but if you focus on the data that they have come up with, there is no other conclusion than the moon was "put" there. Who did it? They don't know; I don't know; you don't know - but it's fun to think about it.

On the INTERESTING side, the claimed mathematical relationships surrounding the Earth, Moon, and Sun are sometimes amazing. Unfortunately, the authors try to make the number of relationships seem like there's more of them than there are by essentially saying the same thing in various ways. As an example, the Sun and Moon have the same "apparent" size viewed from Earth, which sets up a variety of ratios that the author's try to pass off as individually unique. Other features revealed about the Moon (inconsistent gravity, ringing like a bell from impacts, etc) were intriguing.

On the BORING side, many parts of the book seemed like filler to make it bigger.

On the STUPID side, IMO you can't have future civilizations going back in time to build the Moon so humanity will arise so the future civilization will exist to go back in time to build the Moon.......

One (unrelated?) speculation that I found interesting is that (large, supposedly unused) sections our DNA might hold coded messages from our "creators".

I actually believe that this book deserves four stars, not five, but I feel it is only fair to help balance those critics who have made terse attacks on the book without reading it. It also helps if one has read the author's prior publication "Civilization One." This will give the reader a broader perspective on one of the most valuable tenets of the "moon" book, and that is the concept of the "Megalithic Yard." I would suggest that any reader who wishes to open her/his mind to alternative answers also read Peter Russel's "From Science to God." Perhaps Knight's book does go off the edge, because of some very strange mathematical coincidences, but... What If?

Very interesting, very well researched and very entertaining right up until the authors try to answer their own question, at which point speculation takes over and I started to wish the book would have ended sooner. It was a very thought provoking question given the evidence presented, in my opinion it should have been left as a question, because I found the answer proposed by the authors to be disappointing, and thus anticlimactic, due to the extremely high level of conjecture. Having said that, I would like to commend the authors on their discovery of the amazing and unexplainable correlations, and seemingly impossible coincidences, that they offer up for the readers consideration. I really hope that this question provokes thought in scientific circles and instigates debate that might eventually shine some light on who, or what, built the moon.

From reading this book, I found that the current theories on the Moon's origin are insufficient and that there is indeed some highly intesting numerology tying together the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun. I've also come away with the impression that, to these authors, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. During the course of the book, which is a combination of astronomical history and numerology, they drift from a valid questioning of calcified scientific 'knowledge' to utter preposterous, New Age claptrap. They discard the theory of the Moon being created by chance as being 'too coincidental', then posited their own theory: that it was built by either a) humans who went back in time 60 billion years or b) time-travelling worker robots who were sent back in time so that they could save us (and Sara Connor). The final chapter in particular is a cherry-on-the-cake moment: the authors go so far as to SUGGEST AN OFFICIAL NAME for this time-travelling mission, when we as a society are 'ready for it'. Oh dear.


I'll go with the Green Cheese theory.

P.S. Why do books like these (which I read avidly) always have glaringly obvious spelling and punctuation errors? Can they NOT afford a proofer??