Every astronaut since 1969 landings has seen strange "flashing lights" while approaching the Moon

www.mirror.co.uk... I've been red pilled on UFO after seeing NASA cut feed on real UFO footage on ISS. Anybody have any credible reason why astronauts see blinking lights on the moon? I don't think that the "cosmic ray" theory but NASA or am i being paranoid...

a reply to: zeroeffect

I'm sure Phage will be along soon to explain properly,but aren't these caused by gamma rays or something like that?

a reply to: zeroeffect

Cosmic Ray Visual Phenomena

Well either that or the man in the moon keeps turning the lights on and off!

a reply to: Imagewerx

Gamma rays are super deadly and like i said I don't think those cosmic rays are natural occuring

From the article

Strangely, the men were seeing the flashes when their eyes were open and when they were closed.

Yep.. they where seeing cosmic rays

cosmic ray particles pass through the vitreous humour of the astronauts' eyes, direct interaction with the optic nerve,direct interaction with visual centres in the brain,retinal receptor stimulation, or a more general interaction of the retina with radiation.

Haven't been to the moon, check the difference in distance from where the iss is and the moon, the van Allen radiation belt and fuel prevents transport to the moon , yet another msm " let's do a moon story" , since we've s blood moon coming up, sell those sheets!! Kids comics.

a reply to: zeroeffect

Gamma Rays are super deadly if they're in a high enough concentration. You are exposed to gamma rays every day, without danger. Even thunderstorms can produce them.

a reply to: Midnite247

Funny that the man that discovered the Belts claims that you can get through them. I guess everyone that says you can't is smarter than he is.

So just a comment ( which is fine) or do U think we've been to the moon in 60s and haven't been back since nasa have said we cannot goto the moon with today's technology? a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: Midnite247

NASA didn't say we can't go back. They said we can't go back and stay. They could get back if it was an Apollo style program with the technology we have today. They can't build habitats, or mine, or any of the long term things they want to be able to do.

Rather than visit the moon for hours or days at most, Constellation astronauts will embark on missions that could last months. They will need new tools and technologies for living on the moon, and must construct semi-permanent habitats on the lunar surface. Besides the challenge of designing these systems, NASA must build a spaceship than can transport all the extra supplies.

www.space.com...

Beyond the earths magnetic field astronauts are more directly exposed to the solar wind. Energetic particles stream through their bodies mostly missing everything, but since there are more of them "out there" more impacts with atoms nuclei occur. The impacts in the eyes fire receptors, just like the camera imager chip in satellites like SOHO. They draw pictures of these, I think they can be found in here.

image search

The danger inherent is that living cells will be injured and heal, mutate the next time they divide, giving rise to cancer.

SOHO image artifacts

Not nit picking, but I didn't say go back, I said go there..period. They didn't. Go there. If i went to the moon I could prove that so easily. Id give you how I did it, id debunk every conspiracy theory, id at least say sure the video wasn't real cause we wanted a good media shot to share to the American ppl , I'd explain why Neil Armstrong couldn't give a media interview considering he was the most important human on earth, id say why we haven't been back there considering why
NASA has 20 times the budget they ever had, and why we still can't explain the trajectory of the landing pod technology that pin pointed a landing on the moon thst defies aircrafts on earth today reply to: Zaphod58

I guess a good test of the theory would be to check all the images from robotic spacecraft that have been sent to the Moon. If they come up with bright spots and UFOs, then it may have to do with something else besides gamma ray particles hitting an astronaut's retina.

a reply to: Midnite247

Go there, go back, it doesn't matter, they didn't say we can't go there in an Apollo style mission. The quote from NASA remains the same, we can't go there and stay.

Neil Armstrong was a very private person. How you would react doesn't mean that he would react the same. It doesn't mean that I would react the same. He didn't like the spotlight, and stayed out of it. His behavior doesn't prove anything, except that he was a very private person.

As for their budget, they are also doing a lot of other things with that budget. If you look at it in constant dollars, it's hardly 20 times the budget. There was a huge jump in budget between 1960 and 1990 if you look at it in constant dollars, but as for other decades, the budget is similar, or even higher back then. In 1970, the budget in constant dollars (millions) was $23,000 compared to $18,547 in 2000. During the height of Apollo, every year the NASA budget was higher than it was in more recent years in several cases, it was more than double what their budget has been recently. Even going by percentage of the federal budget, it was higher during Apollo than it has been lately. In 1966 it reached a high of 4.41% of the federal budget, or $43,544 in constant dollars. The highest it has gotten recently was in 2010, when it was at 0.52%, or $20,423 constant dollars.

What "trajectory of the landing pod technology" are you talking about?

a reply to: zeroeffect

Transient Lunar Phenomenon.

Thread Here

a reply to: zeroeffect

You may be interested in this, careful though as stitching interview's together can make people seem to say almost anything but there are some definitely genuine statement's about this by some of the astronaut's in this video.

a reply to: Midnite247

Did you and I watch a different moon landing?

The Moon Landing, in 1969, was not a pinpoint, laser guided affair. The intended drop site was deemed too undulating and rough upon approach, and Neil Armstrong put the craft down with seconds of fuel to spare. It was an edge of your seat, by the seat of their pants ride to the lunar surface, not a precision perfect, text book following of the exact plan that NASA had for the mission.

And as for cosmic rays, yes, they are well known phenomena, thoroughly documented and explained.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: zeroeffect

You may be interested in this, careful though as stitching interview's together can make people seem to say almost anything but there are some definitely genuine statement's about this by some of the astronaut's in this video.

"there are some definitely genuine statement's about this by some of the astronaut's in this video"

Exactly WHAT did they say you think is extraordinary?

a reply to: LABTECH767

This looks like they Syfy documentary.

I had great fun demolishing that here

onebigmonkey.com...

originally posted by: Midnite247
Not nit picking, but I didn't say go back, I said go there..period. They didn't. Go there. If i went to the moon I could prove that so easily. Id give you how I did it, id debunk every conspiracy theory,

It can be proven that they went and every conspiracy theory can and has been debunked.

id at least say sure the video wasn't real cause we wanted a good media shot to share to the American ppl , I'd explain why Neil Armstrong couldn't give a media interview considering he was the most important human on earth,

Armstrong gave lots of interviews, he just gave them when and to whom he chose. Contrast that with the media tart that is Buzz Aldrin who would open a supermarket if the price was right but who consiracy theorists seem to forget was also there.

id say why we haven't been back there considering why
NASA has 20 times the budget they ever had,

And how much is it in relative terms?

and why we still can't explain the trajectory of the landing pod technology that pin pointed a landing on the moon thst defies aircrafts on earth today reply to: Zaphod58

Dunno about you but every aircraft I've ever flown on landed exactly where it was supposed to. Why are trajectories impossible?