Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[Bob B.]

... even fiction based on the moon hoax conspiracy.

I think it is fair to say that anything purporting a hoax is fiction.  When you really study the facts about Apollo and put that up against the hodgepodge of arguments coming from the hoax theorists, there is really no comparison.  I think just familiarizing yourself with the history of Apollo is a good place to start.  I agree with those that have recommended the book Man on the Moon or the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon.  Both are very entertaining.  I think it is a big mistake to read the hoax literature first because (1) the authors don't know what they're talking about, and (2) they are masters of deceit and manipulation.  Reading their claptrap first may only cause confusion.  After you've familiarized yourself with the historical facts you can then go read the conspiracy theories.  If you're interested in reading more and have an aptitude for technology, studying the science and engineering of Apollo can keep you busy for years.

[Zakalwe]

I'd love to read more on the subject though bar what websites have to offer.

There's probably very few books from the perspective of a hoaxie because to write such a book would require research, organisation and dedication. Which, IMHO, a typical hoaxie lacks. After all, if they were any good at research then they'd quickly debunk themselves. You only have to look at the last couple of hoaxies that have been on here (AllanCW and Awe130) to get an insight into the mindset of a hoaxie.

If you want to learn about Apollo, then I'd recommend this as a first step:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Flew-Springer-Praxis-Books-ebook/dp/B0019JGZ3W/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409037120&sr=1-2&keywords=how+apollo+flew+to+the+moon

I've always had a passing interest in the moon hoax

I've met a few people with that view. Most of them haven't bothered to do any research either way and recite the usual old guff without any thought. You should realise that there was no hoax.

do believe it was faked myself.

Why?

[Bob B.]

If you want to read something right now about the history of the program, you can try the following:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/race.htm

This is a presentation that started work on a few years that was intended as a primer for those seeking an introduction to the subject.  Unfortunately I never finished so it abruptly ends part way through.  There's enough material there, however, for quick start.

[nomuse]

Interesting question comes to mind, though...

What moon hoax writings are out there that were clearly meant as fiction?

I'm sure there must be a few science fiction yarns that include a hoaxed Apollo as part of the background. Although what comes to mind first are two different movies, each of which assumes the landings took place (just that more happened in addition).

[Bob B.]

There was Capricorn One but that was Mars, not the Moon.  I don't know of any fictional story about a fake Moon landing.

[skeptic_UK]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.

I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ) it was based on!

[Mag40]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.

I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ) it was based on!

No, it's not based on the Moon landings. Are you going to present any evidence or is this one of those opinion based threads where you don't care about the actual facts?

[smartcooky]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll go through them slowly to pick out the links.

I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ) it was based on!

Err, it was more likely the other way around; Apollo Hoax nutjobs based their looney ideas on premise of the Peter Hyams' film and novel. Hyams himself admits he got the story idea while working on Apollo broadcasts for CBS.

[Kiwi]

...Are you going to present any evidence or is this one of those opinion based threads where you don't care about the actual facts?

Skeptic_UK Please allow me to apologise to you for the distasteful and bad-mannered approach of the above poster, who doesn't appear to have read the thread properly, or is perhaps having an utterly miserable day and needs to take it out on someone else.

We don't all behave like that in this forum. In fact, you have had some perfectly civil and informative replies to your enquiry from some of our best-known, best-informed and toughest debunkers, as you will find out if you hang around and study what goes on here.  Many of us are here because of our admiration for what the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo missions accomplished, and it is a wonderful place to learn from experts in many fields. Plus, it is generally a much more civilised site than many on the "interweb".

However, please feel free to tell us what made you believe in the moonlanding "hoax" and do forgive some of the more aggressive or impolite members of ApolloHoax. Some of them have a hard job controlling themselves.

One hint, note that combination: Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. A major failing of many hoax-believers (HBs) is that they're ignorant of the first two, and seem to think that Apollo appeared out of nowhere after Kennedy's two best-known speeches about going to the moon.

Another major failing of some HBs is that they are ignorant.   

P.S.: I own two of the better-known hoax books, "NASA MOONED AMERICA!" By [Ralph] René and "DARK MOON -- Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers" by Bennett and Percy. Also, when I first heard of the "hoax" in the 1990s I read my first book on the subject, "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up" by William L Brian II. These people seem to like long titles and EXCLAMATION MARKS.

So that's three books, but unfortunately I can't describe any of them as "good." Quite the contrary.

If you like I'll relate the details of some of my experiences with the books. For instance, because I was previously a professional photographer, I saw within minutes of looking at photos in Brian's book, that he knew little or nothing about photography, and figured that if he was equally inexpert about the neutral gravity point between the earth and the moon, his entire book was mostly nonsense.  It took me a few years to learn enough to know that that was indeed the case.

And by the way, I bought Bennett and Percy's book second hand, and René gave me his after I wrote to him about his first article in Nexus magazine. So I didn't feather their nests, which is how I like it.

[Mag40]

Another major failing of some HBs is that they are ignorant.   

Should I apologise on your behalf for that comment?

[Jason Thompson]

No need. The statement of HBs being ignorant is factual, and calling someone ignorant is not an insult. Everyone is ignorant about some things. Your response was, however, rather harsh considering it was only the second time that person had posted.

HBs may turn out to be wilfully ignorant, rude, obnoxious, stubborn or whatever, and yes, some of them can be trying (just look at Awe130), but everyone who comes here deserves a fair hearing before being jumped on.

[RAF]

The AwE130 thread was a bit of train-wreck as frustration with AwE130's self-important dishonesty boiled over.

I'm actually quite thankful for that thread. For one thing, it got me posting again after leaving CosmoBAUT for (I Hope) is the last time.

...yeah, I know....I've flounced before, but there is something different about this time. Heck, I haven't even logged in there since the 16th of July.

Back on topic...In the shadow of the Moon, and Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon are 2 very fine video productions highlighted by the Apollo astronauts own descriptions of what it was like to actually be there.

I highly recommend both.

 

[Luke Pemberton]

I do love Capricorn one. While yes it is technically about Mars. It's clear what real life event ( ) it was based on!

That's a refreshing comment as some individuals on both sides of the debate believe Kaysing based his book on Capricorn 1. My understanding is that Kaysing wrote his book in 1974 and Capricorn 1 was 1977, so Kaysing had the original thought.

Regardless of which argument one supports, facts are facts and we must get those from the hoax believers side correct too. I don't know if Capricorn 1 is based on Kaysing's book, but if so then kudos to Kaysing for his role in a brilliant film.

[Kiwi]

Here's a review of Brian's book at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Moongate-Suppressed-Findings-Space-Program/dp/0941292002/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409058124&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=Moongate+%22William+L+Brian%22

Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up by William Brian

Flawed and Error Filled
By  John R. Keller on February 6, 2006
Format: Paperback
 
On the back of this book, it states that "Although not considered an expert in the space sciences, he [the author William Brian] has the mathematical and conceptual skills to verify the cover-up from a scientific standpoint." While it true that all engineers should be able to solve simple algebraic equations, it is knowing when and how to apply these equations to the appropriate situations that is truly important. Unfortunately, the author fails on the later.

The thesis of this book is that the gravity of the Moon is not 1/6 the Earth's gravity, but that it is approximately two-third (64%) of Earth's gravity, even though numerous experiments and mathematical formulae, some centuries old, have proven otherwise. Of course, by using his "finding" the author goes down the path of farfetched and improbable ideas; such as NASA has anti-gravity drives, the moon has an atmosphere, and the usual hollow moon and UFOs conspiracies.

In light of the centuries of study, one is tempted to ask, "How did the author arrive at his conclusion?" In his book, he writes that NASA has stated the neutral point (the point where the Earth's gravity equals the moon) between the Earth and Moon is different than what has been published for centuries. Specifically, the neutral point is approximately 20,000 miles closer to the Earth, which in turn implies that the Moon's gravity is much greater. It is here that his lack of knowledge regarding space science fails him. In his analysis, he uses a simple one dimensional method to determine the neutral point. In other words, he draws a straight line between the Earth and the Moon and works a simple equation. In real spaceflight, the trip to the moon is much more complex. It requires not only using all three dimensions; it also requires factoring the effects of the movement of the Earth, moon and the spacecraft. In other words, he applied the wrong equation to the situation, so of course he is going to arrive at the wrong answer. Any college level book on orbital mechanics (the mathematics of space flight) shows how this problem is solved, and it is not a simple high-school algebra equation. He also attempts to prove his gravity argument using several other equations, but again he fails, because he does not know how to use them correctly.

When all is said and done, save your money and buy a good technical book on space flight or orbital mechanics and skip this one.

The part I have bolded shows how common it is for ignorance to defeat HBs. There are links to other reviews -- enthusiastic ones -- on the same page, which shows how easily laypeople are fooled. This stuff IS rocket science.

In case non-New Zealanders don't get that, the expression, "C'mon, it's not rocket science" is very common here, and used to point out that the subject being discussed isn't all that difficult, but rocket science is.

Bennett and Percy make the same mistake in their book.

I arrived at my own conclusion regarding Brian's claim by not using maths (my worst subject at school), but by getting a large sheet of paper, finding all sorts of figures about the speed of the moon's motion around the earth, the speed of an Apollo craft heading to the moon, the directions of their motions, and the timing of both, and doing a scale drawing. It was only in 2D and probably wasn't very accurate, but it was enough to convince me Brian was very wrong.

[RAF]

...calling someone ignorant is not an insult.

"Willful ignorance" is an insult, and when I use that phrase, I mean it to be as insulting as possible.

But no, being ignorant is no crime, but remaining ignorant after being presented the facts, is.