Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Shop Popular Services powers4premiere powers4premiere powers4premiere  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis GNO Shop Now STEMClub17_gno
Customer Review

89 of 92 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Bad Astronomy made fun, January 12, 2003
This review is from: Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax" (Paperback)
As an amateur astronomer, I took great pleasure reading Philip Plait's "Bad Astronomy". The book handles the debunking of common myths with hysterical humor. I could not put the book down. Each chapter was entertaining.
Finally we have a text that not only puts the Coriolis Effect where it belongs but explains basic astronomy principles in lay terms. It is better than reading an astronomy textbook. Where else could you read about why skies are blue and why the earth has seasons than in this humorous tome.
Plait gets a little more serious as he talks about the more delicate subjects of the Apollo "hoax", Velikovsky, UFOs, and Astrology. This was appropriate since many people believe in these unscientific hypotheses. He approaches these subjects in a nonoffensive, objective and scientific manner.
Being a movie fan, I particularly enjoyed the chapter entitled: "Bad Astronomy Goes Hollywood." Here Plait unveils all of the Bad Astronomy we see every day in science fiction movies. In his list of Top 10 offenses, the Star Wars series is guilty of no less than 8 of them. That does not make Star Wars any less enjoyable, but it is fun to know the difference between science and Hollywood.
I give this book 5 stars. I think it would be entertaining for anyone with any interest in astronomy regardless of how much or how little they know about the subject matter.
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)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs 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
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 24, 2009, 2:22:56 PM PDT
E. Keech says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 26, 2009, 10:01:43 PM PDT
Dear E. Keech:

I provided you with a detailed answer as to why your analysis is wrong. Why are you harassing other people?

Stephen Pletko (AKA Uncle Stevie)

Posted on Mar 26, 2010, 11:03:00 AM PDT
G. Larson says:
E Keech: your theory only holds up if the astronauts were walking around naked on the moon, in case you haven't seen the footage they wear space suits.

Posted on Jun 11, 2011, 8:59:38 PM PDT
Steve Zubal says:
Answer me this: Why did'nt NASA leave a radio beacon that anyone on Earth could pick up using a radio telescope? It should still be there! SETI searches deep into our galaxy listening for signals. Leaveing a beacon seems like a no-brainer! I say "prove it"! If you can't prove it then it's not fact. And really how can anyone believe what our government claims!? Our pig-government was/is built on lies! Believe that!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2011, 9:06:28 PM PDT
G. Larson says:
Why would they? it would serve no purpose then to just "be there" They left retroreflectors that are used nearly daily in order to determine the distance to the moon, how can these not be taken as proof but a radio beacon would? Also you don't need to believe the government, there are plenty of private sector third parties that agree with the historical record. You say "prove it" well . . . it has been proven, you can't disprove reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2011, 2:00:51 PM PDT
Steve Zubal says:
The retroreflectors could've been dropped, a beacon with a unique signal could be retrieved and verified by a third party that: yes this is the beacon we placed on NASAs' ship and: yes it contains the unique signal verified by telescopes worldwide. As it stands a non-bias jury would have only NASAs' statements to base a desicision on. There is no indisputable physical evidence! The burden of proof is on NASA, most historical records are far from factual. Your believing in Santa Claus, that is reality. NASA has proven NOTHING so there's nothing for me to disprove. Show me any evidence you can find and I'll explain how and why it's false.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2011, 9:46:08 AM PDT
G. Larson says:
Once again, a retroreflector provides the identical verification of a radio beacon. There are plenty of independent third parties that use the retroreflectors for experiments all the time. A radio beacon would be an electronic device that would require maintenance and wouldn't last very long in the moon's harsh environment by itself and would certainly not be useable today. You're right though, if you ignore the thousands of photographs, hours of video, gigabytes of telemetry, experimental, biometric etc. data, hundreds of pounds of geological samples, the aforementioned retroreflectors, and the photos of the landing sites recently taken from lunar orbit, you're right, there's no phyisical evidence at all! Just because you don't believe reality, doesn't mean it's not valid proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2011, 1:00:05 PM PDT
Steve Zubal says:
I'm curious: Is there a third party that at the time varified that: yes there are radio signals emanating from the moon consistant with NASAs' claim that astronauts have landed there. It makes sence that the U.S.A. would tell the world the news and ask for verification from astronomers worldwide, even the U.S.S.R. If so are these claims also disputed. All of the evidence I've seen presented could have been fabricated, they had billions of dollars to work with yet 'Hollywood' seems more real. One fake picture or thousands of fake pictures, their still fake pictures. Finally: name one major event that happaned the way our government said it happened. Their batting zero! When they speak they lie. Slaves freed...LIES, Wars won...LIES, Terrorist attacks...LIES, Reasons for war...LIES, Moon landing...LIES!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2011, 3:19:05 PM PDT
G. Larson says:
The USSR verified that there were radio signals from where NASA said the Apollo craft were and when they said they were there. I don't think there's a better deffinition of independent verification than when it comes from ones mortal enemy. Using the logic of "it can be faked therefore it was" is what's known as a logical fallacy. To a certain point everything that has ever happened and will ever happen can be faked.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2012, 4:37:08 PM PST
said very well Mr Larson
‹ Previous 1 Next ›