DtRH 16/2018


Look Ma, No Stars!

Another Look at the Man on the Moon Malarky

Article by Stratophericus

There are people who actually go quite ballistic if you suggest to them that no human beings wearing space suits landed on the moon.  The moon landings are wonderful science fiction stories fabricated by NASA, (Never A Straight Answer) and expertly photographed in a studio by Stanley Kubrick. It was all such marvellous malarky, wasn’t it?

Take a look at the space ship which went to the moon.  Let us examine the thing in detail and you will scratch your head and wonder, I should have given that a shake a while ago, if you had not done that yet.

The mighty Saturn rocket taking off from Cape Canaveral.

The object they were aiming at but never got to with their Apollo craftiness.

First of all, if human beings and sensitive electronic equipment are to go into Outer Space past the Van Allen Belts they and their stuff would end up in a toxic soup of X-rays, Cosmic Rays, and very high temperatures, apparently; according to recent information that has come my way.


Indeed, the X-ray intensity is high enough out there to warrant at least 6 feet of lead shielding to protect the astro nuts and their sensitive electronic equipment; which back then was the equivalent of a few smart phones.

Anyway, to continue.  According to the report I read recently temperatures out there are high enough to melt most of the components of a human NASA or other human made space craft which leads me to wonder how it is possible that any of our satellites get to the places they supposedly get to.  So, is the entire story bunk I wonder???  Are there actually satellites way out there past the sun and beyond or is it all some Hollywood fantasy cooked up in Texas?

Certainly we have communication satellites floating about but they are still within Earth’s atmosphere; high up, but on this side of those famous belts.

Now let’s examine the space craft which took three astro nuts and all of that equipment into space.  You are supposed to believe that a landing craft, a wheeled car and three men in suits which wouldn’t stand a chance against the radiation and extreme temperatures were shot to the moon in a capsule on top of a mighty rocket.

They also took golf clubs.

Note the size of the landing craft.  Also note the size of the moon car.  And, do not forget to take note of the bulkiness of the space suits and the back pack.  All of that supposedly was stuffed into a comparatively small container made up of some thin aeronautical aluminum and padding.

Yes, well, it’s all a nice make believe which Gene Rodenberry would have been proud of.

NASA boldly went alright.

How were those astro nuts supposed to go from the capsule they were in to get into the lander?   And where in the lander was the car located?  Take note, the moon car is no tiny Fiat.

A tiny Fiat in red

Earth apparently photographed from the moon by the NASA gang.

Where Are The Stars?

The moon supposedly has no atmosphere.  Hence, there is no weather on the moon.  Winds do not blast their way across the craters or lick at the sands of time.  Did you take note of the photo in which there is a flag on a pole supposedly on the moon?  In case you missed it, here is another one.

What we so proudly hail by the light’s early gleaming.

Also remember that the astro nuts had to have food and water along and there has to be a consideration for the sewage issue.  After all, even though those men are NASA guys, they still have to pee and poop.  Human scatology is generally glossed over in most stories; just as belly buttons were left off Sears models in the catalogues back in the day.

Hasselblad 500 Camera.  This  camera type might have been used to photograph Sears models.  It was also apparently used on the moon.

A Hasselblad camera exactly like the one shown was painted white and the viewfinder removed.  This device was strapped to the front of an astro nut’s suit and with it, whoever shot the photos, the NASA chaps might have taken turns, made perfect photos each time.  This is without a viewfinder and the controls not workable because the huge pressurized gloves would make turning dials on the lens, or making adjustments on the housing or turning the film impossible.  You do see that, don’t you?  And, speaking of film; there is no film on Earth which can withstand the extreme temperature differentials on the moon from shade to intense sunlight.  The temperature range is well over 200 degrees and the fact there is no atmosphere, the amount of X-rays bombarding the moon’s surface would have fogged every film placed in that white painted camera with no six feet of lead shielding.

You can do this experiment for yourself with a pair of heavy leather work gloves and an E 500 Hasselblad or any film camera for that matter.  Try it with your communication wafer camera.

Perfect photos each time.  Who took the one of Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon?






Return to Rense.com

Go to DtRH Archives


Consider a Donation and Keep DtRH Alive and Well.

Contact Information Below


Listen to Gertjan on Radio Free Stratophericus every Friday at 8 p.m. Eastern on ResolutionRDO.com.

Listen to Gertjan with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock every Friday at 8 a.m. MST on EuroFolkRadio.comDown the Rabbit Hole with Gertjan & Andy.






18 thoughts on “DtRH 16/2018”

    1. The moon must have to be rotating about its axis in order to maintain one of its face always facing the earth, as it rotates around it.

      1. Think about it a second….if you tie a tennis ball to a string and swing it in a circle around your head, does it spin “on it’s axis”? To say it doesn’t but the moon does, just because there’s no string tied to the moon would be paradoxical. There is a difference between orbital and spin momentum. The moon and earth orbit one another as part of a system. The axis of that system is very near the earth’s surface. Thus, to say that the moon spins on it’s axis is incorrect from a physics standpoint. It spins on an orbital axis point which center is near it’s parent mass, the earth. The moon doesn’t spin on it’s axis, though to an outside observer, “appears” to spin. If a professor tells you it spins on it’s own axis, ask him how it’s spin momentum and orbital momentum can be the same, as all points on the moon remain relatively stationary along their orbital path. If the moon is spinning on it’s axis, then so is our tennis ball. In fact, presenting the same face to us continually is the ONLY way the moon CANNOT spin on it’s own axis while orbiting our planet!

        Search – “Huge Media Blackout Regarding Supermoons”

        Good Journeys

  1. our summer and winter are dependant on one side of the earth being a little closer to the sun in the winter/summer solstice.
    The Moon is about 250000 miles closer to the sun and away from the sun in a lunar month. go figure the temperature increase/decrease during orbit. Earth would also appear four times the size of the moon when viewed from the moon.
    I would like to believe but I cant.

    1. Dependent. Three ‘e’ s.

      The seasons depend very little on the difference in distance from the sun, and almost completely on the earth’s axial tilt,
      which is the angle between it’s rotational axis and orbital axis.
      Currently that angle is ~23.4 degrees, but varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000 year cycle.

      As the earth orbits the sun, the northern hemisphere is maximally oriented toward the sun at the summer solstice, and minimally at the winter solstice. This orientation determines the incident solar radiation, and thus the seasons.

      Also, given that the earth and moon are both roughly 93 million miles from the sun, the effect from +/- 250,000 miles distance from earth to moon is negligible–barely a quarter of a percent of the earth/moon to sun distance. The temperature differential due to the +/- 250,000 miles is thus similarly negligible.

      The blanket statement that the Earth would appear four times the size of the moon as viewed from earth is simply ignorant, for multiple reasons.


      Also, @Stratophericus: your question “How were those astro nuts supposed to go from the capsule they were in to get into the lander?” demonstrates that you are either a troll, or don’t know the most rudimentary details about Apollo. Read more, because the answer is obvious.

      The stupid on this site. It hurts.

  2. In one Apollo mission, a camera on the moons surface not only pans out and away from the module… but then elevates to keep the ‘spacecraft’ in its field of view as it departs from the moon. Who was operating it?

  3. They allegedly slingshot off the earth at 20000+ MPH and line up for the moon. How do you correct course in a vacuum? How did they manage to slow down to enter the moons orbit? And just exactly how did they sling shot off the moon headed for earth and get back as quick as they went there?

  4. The moon buggy folded up into a tiny package. It unfolded to its full size as it was pulled out of the LEM. Look it up.

  5. Приобрести можно на веб-сайте http://mangoo77.mangoosteen.com

    Хотим предложить вам чудодейственное средство для снижения веса Mangoosteen. При помощи него возможно сжечь около 10 кг за 2 недели.

    Дерево гарциния растет в Малайзии. Плоды данного дерева имеют удивительные свойства. В баночке содержится более 25 плодов этого замечательного дерева. Плоды дерева гарциния помогают сжечь лишнюю жировую ткань. И также положительно воздействуют на организм в целом. Специфика изготовления средства, а также специальная упаковка помогают сберечь все полезные свойства мангустина.

    Главным компонентом сиропа Мангустина являются фрукты с растения мангустин, в которых имеется огромное количество полезных микроэлементов. Благодаря веществу ксантону, которое в огромных количествах имеется в плодах, значительно тормозятся окислительные процессы в теле. Ксантон является одним из наиболее сильных антиоксидантов. В плодах растения мангкут также есть разнообразные группы витаминов и микроэлементы. Купить сироп Mangoosteen можно на веб-сайте http://mangjoo77.mangoosteen.com.

    1. Thanks for your comment, Craigdroni. Alas I do not read Russian and have no Russian dictionary here in my office. Is it possible for you to translate your words into English, Dutch, French, or German?

    1. NASA = Never A Straight Answer. The entire moon rocket/landing story is a Hollywood fabrication. Even Tom Hanks pondered improbabilities when he filmed his Apollo movie.

  6. Da moon landin is so ridiculous and hard to believe because da moon is hollow and u can see right true it, but it is probably dat someone or some thing builded it and it’s kind of like an artificial space station for da illegal aliens from quasar land.

Leave a Reply to Craigdroni Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *