I only wanted to purchase this to give me amunition to show school children how Not To Do Science! You will only end up embarrassing yourself as this author has done.


An absurd work of pure fantasy   January 25, 2005
 13 out of 15 found this review helpful

If Amazon had a 'no star' rating Dark Moon would get it. This book is an absurd work of fantasy. The 'science' is laughable - so laughable and just plain wrong that it makes the book highly entertaining. Conspiracy theorists, X-files addicts and numerologists will love it. Read it, have a good laugh, and forget it.


Absolute Garbage!   January 22, 2004
 24 out of 26 found this review helpful

I received a copy of "Dark Moon" directly from the authors as I gave David Percy and his assistant a tour of the Goldstone tracking facility and was interviewed on camera by David in December of 1997.

I worked at the Goldstone Manned Space Flight Network station during all Apollo missions and was an eyewitness to those events. However this book is filled with half-truths and total fabrications about the Apollo program. It will only be of interest to people who like things about "Area 51," "Crop Circles," Roswell "UFO's" and other weird "happenings."

Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of photography and physics can see through the so-called "facts" presented in this fabrication. It should be considered a work of fiction instead of an independent view of a historic event.

Bill Wood, Retired Tracking Systems Engineer, Barstow, CA


Factual Inconsistencies   January 13, 2004
 19 out of 20 found this review helpful

Having borrowed this book from the library i thought it might be a good read - but factual errors crop up everywhere!If the authors have researched this book so thoroughly (as it states on the back cover) then how come something as simple as a diagram labelled (by the authors) Vostok airlock can crop up? vostok didnt have an airlock! As well as this two other examples that spring to mind are the frequent mixups between apoapsis and periapsis (they label them the wrong way round in a table, as well as other locations) and in the back the maths they use to describe lunar gravity and the earth-moon zero acceleration point cannot be compared to each other, while the authors suggest they can.

In short, this book may be interesting but it is also completely incorrect. Im not stating that we have or have not landed on the moon - i am stating that the "evidence" put forward by the authors is so factually incorrect that it offers no proof what-so-ever in relation to lunar landings.