They debunk the Apollo myth and do it with style. Check out their video "What happened on the moon." Out with it NASA - You may have mooned America but you did not moon the world.

A good book. Some parts are must read stuff particularly the analysis of the video and still image footage along with the background pertianing to the camer equipment etc. and the inherant radiation and other obstacles. Other parts tend to be rather heavy going.

Overall I would definately recommend this book for anyone interested in the Apollo missions particularly if, like me, you don't believe man has walked on the moon.

There's alot of conjecture in this controversial book about the veracity of the lunar landings.I'm not a astro-physicist,yet many good questions were raised about the plausibleness of a grand hoax.To me,the social aspects ,and not the concrete scientific aspects,is what leads thinking people to question the media coverage of the NASA Moon projects.For example ,the majority of NASA engineers that were fired,came from the Yankee northern states.And the majority of NASA engineers that were retained were from the Dixieland southern states.-Some examples I can not agree with the authoress,Mary D.Bennett,on.The main light projection comes from behind the filming astronaut (i.e. the sun) ,when he is taking a picture of another fellow astronaut.The 'Dark Moon' authors stress that a 'secondary light' casts lunar rock shadows in another angled direction.Their point being that a movie-set artificial lamp was used ,on a closed-set arena,in the American South-West desert.Could the secondary light source have been ,'Earth-Shine' ,from the rising Earth in the distance?No where mentioned about the possiblity of light reflections from other orbiting objects around the Moon.-The biggest question,one has to ask is, "Why fake the moon landings?".One could argue that 'National Pride' was at stake .The Russians were ahead of the USA ,by 1965.One could argue that,"If the USA could not put a crew ,on the moon,neither could the Russians.".And would it not make NASA look silly if they went to immense lengths to falsify the lunar missions?Why would the government blatantly construct a hoax,and risk the trustworthiness of the foundations of our American society? Science does not lie and time will tell if the foundation still holds up.Updated:23.July.07.+ Another thing that i thought was strange,was why didn't more of the Mercury astronauts go to the moon? Only Alan Shepard and Gordon Cooper,the first and last of the Mercury program astronauts,went to the moon.None of the other qualified Mercury astronauts were allowed to be a part of the Apollo moon missions.Gus Grisom was not well liked by some of the engineers.He and two other astronauts were trapped in the flaming space-craft.Where engineers knewof the risks of having an oxygen rich environment within the craft and did nothing to prevent the tragedy from occurring.Did Gus threaten to blow the whistle on the Apollo hoax?

Clearly, the topic of DARK MOON hits nerves. If true, the size and extent of the cover-up and conspiracy has dire, dire implications for us all. If it is possible to pull off a hoax so central to how we view ourselves as Americans (free, honest, adventurous, leaders, explorers, etc), then most of what we take for "reality" is simply illusion. Thus, most people would argue with every fiber of their being that DARK MOON is ludicrous, stupid, impossible, and ultimately offensive and dangerous. It becomes an emotional argument, not a rational one for most. Honestly, I can't understand how someone of average intelligence or better can read this book and not be really bothered by it. Bothered by the tremendous amount of "things" that don't add up. Other reviewers seem desperate to quote various pages of the book where they can provide "proof to the World" that DARK MOON is pure fabrication, psuedo-science, quackery, snake oil, bunk, and plain old lies. Really? Then they will state, unequivically, not to get the book; not to waste your time or money on it. Why then, did those same reviewers buy DARK MOON, read it and then review it, knowing full well the crazy premise of the book? Case in point: I truly don't believe in the tooth fairy, therefore, I don't buy books claiming existence of tooth fairies, read them, then review them on Amazon. If, in the future, a tooth fairy happens to appear on my bed looking for a tooth under my pillow, then I might explore the issue further, but not ONE SECOND before my take on reality is shattered. And that is what this book does: it shatters realities.

The biggest stumbling block for most people is the extent of the conspiracy required to hoax the Apollo missions, but the book does a good job explaining it. It rang true to me because as an alternative cancer researcher and practitioner, I am fully aware of the conspiracy existing within the "cancer industry" and modern health care in general. The programming starts with indoctrination and institutionalization disguised as "education", so that a person sees their environment through very narrow blinders. An example illustrating this point is a comment from a reviewer below about the speed of light. How on Earth would that person know anything about the speed of light other than what they might have read in a book or paper? So what if researchers and scientists have made certain claims? It's all theory and conjecture mixed with agendas, with no first hand experience, and very little pure science behind it. And when rare, brave scientists start to test things truly outside the box, their results often turn mainstream theories inside out. Modern physics is much more bizarre than any scientist would prefer, and their theories and even "Laws" are becoming less and less useful in order to advance our knowledge. So why couldn't light travel at different speeds and behave in other ways given different circumstances? Why are we so quick to yell, "impossible"?

After the programming is complete, then division and segregation is necessary. No researcher works on the big picture; they work within very specialized, isolated environments, with little knowledge of other areas. Seeing a conspiracy is, therefore, nearly impossible. Also, don't discount all the politics and ego within acedemia. Ego is essential, because no scientist wants to think of himself as a fraud or a pawn, so they will often ignore or actively suppress evidence to the contrary.

Then, there are the various financial rewards and career incentives. It takes a very rare individual to seriously rock the boat once a career is established, money and prestige are rolling in and your reputation is on the line. These pressures are much worse for those with families, for obvious reasons. Never underestimate the power of money to sway opinion and suppress the truth. In addition, everyone around you is spouting the same dogma, day after day, so the social pressure to conform becomes enormous.

Finally, if all these factors are not enough to quell dissent, and there still exists scientific people willing to come forth and expose the conspiracy, then actual threats are quite effective. First, economic based threats, then various forms of blackmail, then, ultimately, physical threats. Who wouldn't tow the party line if they thought their family was in jeopardy? Anyone heard of the mysterious deaths of over 50 top microbiologists in the last 3 years, totally defying the statistics? This stuff happens folks.

So, how could thousands of people associated with the Apollo missions be in on the conspiracy? Well, 95 percent were unaware of it for the reasons mentioned above, and the remaining 5 percent were quelled with whatever means were necessary. Does this sound impossible? The true story of Jeff Wigand (sp?), who was a higher level scientist within the tobbaco industry is an excellent example. He was one of the precious few who had the courage and the fortitude to blow his whistle and reveal the huge conspiracy and cover-up involving nicotine addiction and cancer causing additives in cigarettes. The movie was entitled, "The Insider".

So, DARK MOON is provocative, to say the least. The researchers for the book claim they began their investigations in order to DISPROVE a hoax conspiracy, but switched their focus once met with the overwelming evidence to the contrary. Interesting. Also, I don't see much of an agenda here, although, clearly, NASA and other organizations with massive levels of funding have much at stake. Also, NASA has a mickey mouse section on their website trying to deflect hoax criticisms, which is compelling in and of itself.

The true strengths of DARK MOON are the discussions of radiation and the Van Allen Belts, which really are "show stoppers". The discussion of the photos goes much more in depth than you would find on the majority of web sites. There is just much more information supporting the idea that something is amiss with the Apollo missions than the average American can fathom, and whether it is all 100 percent accurate is not really the point. An inaccurate interpretation of one photo does not tarnish the glaring anomalies in hundreds of others. Besides, for you super-patriots out there, DARK MOON does not claim that Americans did not go to the moon; rather, that the version of events that the public was given (complete with photographic and video evidence) by NASA DOESN'T ADD UP. If it makes you feel better, then imagine the USA landing on the moon in the 1950s (a la Buck Rogers) and kicking communist butt all over the solar system, but at least be skeptical of the official version which is what this book does very well.

My criticisms of the book revolve around the crop circles, the sphinx and "face on Mars" material. Interesting ideas, but poorly tied in and explained. In this sense, DARK MOON is like 2 books in one; the "first" is excellent and provocative (and thankfully the majority), the "second" is strange and confusing. Oh well, read it for yourself.

I happen to know the first man on the moon: the guy is now a janitor in a pool hall in Birmingham Alabama, in total obscurity.
Why didn't the author even interview this guy?
He's in on it. It never stops.