Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
How to Fake a Moon Landing: Exposing the Myths of Science Denial Hardcover – April 2, 2013
|New from||Used from|
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
The U.S. edition of what in Britain is called Science Tales (to conform with Cunningham’s Psychiatric Tales, 2011) consists of lively, plain-language debunkings of seven cases of quack or fraudulent science and, in the last chapter, antiscientific bias in general. The belief that the Apollo 11 moon expedition was a hoax, the “alternative” medicines known as homeopathy and chiropractic, the scare about the MMR vaccine inducing autism, arguments against evolution, apologies for fracking, and denying human involvement in rapid climate change are the seven “myths” Cunningham exposes. The text, while never failing to point up the dangers of believing the seven, is economical as can be, which well suits Cunningham’s bare-bones, glorified stick-figure drawing style. Besides stylized use of color—some chapters are all in similar tones (greens, blues), others in more contrasting shades (blue and red, orange and blue)—Cunningham uses plenty of tonally altered (but recognizable) photos to keep the uniformly six-panel pages looking good. The last four pages list, chapter-by-chapter, the print and web sources Cunningham consulted. --Ray Olson
About the Author
Darryl Cunningham is a prolific cartoonist, photographer, and sculptor. Andrew C. Revkin writes the Dot Earth blog for the New York Times.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
I found Moon Landing to be entertaining, sensible, and easy to dip in and out of. I commend Cunningham for tackling controversial subjects in a clear-headed, non-partisan manner. I thought this was mostly clearly stated in his coverage of fracking. Knowing little about the subject I wasn't sure if his take would be "the fears are overblown" or "the assurances that it's safe are spurious." In the end I thought he did a good job of concluding that there is a lot more we need to know about this very new technology and that governments owed it to us to ensure there is a level of transparency and thoroughness in their oversight of the industry. To me this showed he was prepared to objectively analyse the evidence without letting a partisan worldview have him reach a conclusion based on something other than the science. Such people are rare. I look forward to reading more from him.