Customer Review

28 of 40 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Does Amazon have a policy against author reviewing himself?, August 29, 2005
Interesting how "Jane Robinson", "Paul", and "Mike Rothcild" do not have a single OTHER review! (Although that might change now that I pointed out the "hoax".)

As for the book itself, it does not even deserve to be mentioned. I flipped through it at a bookstore -- nothing but regurgitation of conspiracy theories which have been floating on the Web for years. All of them debunked long ago.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 3, 2006 8:15:23 PM PDT
steller says:
this guy flipped through it at the bookstore and decided to go on amazon and write a review?
without even reading it? and why would he care?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2006 5:58:02 AM PST
I own this book and one could easily flip through in an hour and get all the information the author presents. Most of the book is just pictures (poorly reproduced I might add) and drawings. The amount of text is minimal

Posted on Nov 29, 2006 5:08:09 AM PST
J. P. Demers says:
Yo, Mark, those "reviews" were tongue-in-cheek hoaxes themselves. This book is so bad it's funny, and people are having a bit of fun with it here. When someone who's obviously literate and intelligent writes a positive review of this little gem, praising the author's intellect and persuasive skills, it's called "satire".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2006 2:06:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2006 2:07:04 PM PST
Personally, I found this book to be a hoax on the hoax believers. The photo analysis section is hilarious. He blows up the photos to a large size and then says looks here's a snake, bird, cats, etc.

Posted on Jul 24, 2009 11:06:19 PM PDT
E. Keech says:

You say "all of them debunked long ago?" That would include, of course, the Apollo moon landing hoax by NASA, wouldn't it?

I've got news for you! Here's some real facts that clearly indicate the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon:

Facts, group 1

It is commonly known that the sun emits radioactive particles in all directions from an immense nuclear fusion reaction [like a continuous hydrogen bomb]. Also, earth's magnetic field does a good job of repelling such radiation, and the atmosphere somewhat tends to absorb part of it, with little left to reach the earth's surface. However, the moon has neither magnetic field nor atmosphere, so the sun's radiation hits it at full strength. Not only is there a steady level of radiation striking the moon, but solar flares burst immensely more powerful levels for minutes at a time, and there are occasional prominences as well as bursts of radioactivity through cracks in sunspots. Thus, a known and potentially lethal range of radioactivity regularly bombards the moon.

Facts, group 2

The composition of the astronauts' space suits are well described in Wikipedia [an official NASA input], that they have layers of thin plastic and some other materials, but no lead shielding at all. Thus, astronauts in these space suits on the moon are totally unprotected from radioactivity in the area. There has been no description of any radiation-sensitive badge on the astronauts' space suits to warn them of exposure to radiation, nor did any of the Apollo teams report taking any measurements of radiation while on the moon, to my knowledge.

Facts, group 3

NASA never sent any exploratory mission to the moon with an animal aboard to test the risks of radiation, which is commonly done in scientific explorations before risking the lives of humans in a mission. To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of any problem with exposure to radioactivity associated with the moon landings of Apollos 11, 12, 14-17. The astronauts all had post-mission exams, and no one reported any diagnosis of radiation exposure, which the doctors would easily recognize if it had occurred.

Questions: How do you account for NASA sending seven teams of 3 astronauts each to the moon, with six of the teams each setting two astronauts on the moon in the LM for a day or two without any provision whatsoever for protection against radiation nor even the means to monitor radiation levels there? How could they have completely ignored a known potentially harmful situation involving radioactivity from the sun?

Logical conclusions (choose one):

1. NASA was completely calloused and wanted to go to the moon so badly that they totally disregarded the safety of their astronauts and just hoped they wouldn't get too large a dose of radiation while there. (Not likely, nor do I suspect NASA of being so calloused and cold-hearted. Besides, officials would risk criminal charges if any astronauts suffered harm from radiation.)

2. NASA officials knew that the astronauts were only going into orbits around the earth in the Apollo 11-17 missions, so they knew there was no radiation hazard there. This conclusion is overwhelmingly the most plausible and reasonable one of all.

3. Any other logical and reasonable conclusion germane to the issues and respecting all facts, above? Your choice

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2010 3:42:32 PM PST
bukhtan says:
Good lord, Keech.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2011 2:00:13 PM PST
Mark5576 says:
Had a solar flare occurred during any of Apollo missions, and happened to be directed at Earth/Moon system, astronauts would have died. It was a risk they took, and it was no big secret. There is a reason Cold War had "War" in its name.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item not available

Location: Framingham, MA United States

Top Reviewer Ranking: 2,339,444