As much as I like Dunkin' Donuts ads, they sure are missing a marketing opporunity here.

Is there any way of comparing these donuts to the rings they're talking about? If these rings are thick and have holes drilled along the perimeter of the ring, okay, kinda matchs. But if not...





[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

The hole in the middle may not however, be a hole.

The theory by one of the guys that made the NASA video footage - smoking gun documentary makes an interesting hypothesis that the "hole" is in fact an effect caused by a gravity based drive.

The speculation is that gravity is so intense in the area of the hole that light can't penetrate it and bends around it. Thus the object is in fact disc shaped but the propulsion system makes it appear like a torus (donut).

But yeah, how cool would it be to see Dunkin Donut commercials featuring NASA footage of UFOs.

"We don't just make donuts, we make INTERSTELLAR DONUTS!!"

Pokey Oats

Or it could be a pixel saturation effect on the CCD. I'm going to stare at this footage some more after work, and think real hard about if this is really saturation or a visible hole.

Did NASA state that these were 'rings'? I guess that would cancel out the CCD saturation belief, then.

Incidentally, Leevi claims to have seen such an out of focus blob fly over his house. That is interesting, since his eye will focus correctly if it can, and it is possible that the thing looks like something out of focus with a hole because of lensing of light (such as by a propulsion source, etc.)

But the problem is that NASA can always just claim this is a near field effect. So it won't get us anywhere. We need higher resolution, or the simultaneous perspective of more than one camera. NASA doesn't seem to be big on providing such perspectives to the public. I wonder if they have fottage of the debri from more than one camera at the same time?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
Did NASA state that these were 'rings'? I guess that would cancel out the CCD saturation belief, then.

Yep

Hale said that the mysterious objects all probably came from the shuttle, and that his best guest is that one piece was probably an orange plastic filler placed in between the tiles that protect the shuttle from the blasting heat of re-entry. He said another object appeared to a garbage bag.

The other pieces were described by Jett as two rings and a piece of foil.

Then...

Hale said they were nothing to worry about: "Sorry, we're being a litterbug here."

Hahaha ... not! I get a $25,000 fine when I'm caught littering

Big marketing opportunity for Ziploc "So strong, they survive extreme thermal variances of 4 layers of atmosphere, and mach 15 escape velocity to get into space!"

I wonder if they have fottage of the debri from more than one camera at the same time?

I have seen two different angles of the debris on that other thread that's popular. I may be mistaken but I thought one was from the back and the other from the front.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by saint4God]

If you watch the footage of the triangle formation movie;

ground control says: "Just confirming for the viewers at home, there is infact only one object in view at the moment, the 2 rings are camera artifacts or reflections"

atronaut: "ahh negative, we have a visual on three objects"

ground control: "......."




and that is the same dialogue i heared when i was watching the event live on nasa tv.

I can confirm that in general, lbennie, I heard a similar conversation.

The way I heard it was something like (paraphrasing):

Controller: And those two things are artefacts?
Astronaut: Negative

And so on.

Its interesting data. I'm looking forward to what it will contribute to our knowledge of how to interpret these STS mission videos.

Regarding the conversation between the Astronauts and Mission Control it just seems to me that the astronauts are trying to send a message to "us", the kind of people that frequent ATS.

In fact, I think the astronauts are on to something and every time they encounter these "anomolous" objects should start querying NASA if anything fell off the shuttle and if their safe to land.

Because, it would appear that they're simply not allowed to mention Extra Terrestrial craft but because of the Columbia incident they are more than able to mention that they're spotting debris and query whether their return is safe.

If they could just continue this course of action with consistency whenever they encounter more pulsating donut (torus) like craft then some real interesting waves could be made.

After all, you can't condem a man (or woman) for wanting to come home alive.

Pokey Oats

Originally posted by lbennie
If you watch the footage of the triangle formation movie;

ground control says: "Just confirming for the viewers at home, there is infact only one object in view at the moment, the 2 rings are camera artifacts or reflections"

atronaut: "ahh negative, we have a visual on three objects"

ground control: "......."

I either missed that or didn't see the same video, but hilarious nonetheless.

You have voted lbennie for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

That was epic. I wish we could ask the astronauts about this statement in great detail. But, I'm sure the next mission that goes up will have a little "something extra" in the briefing to keep in mind the camera's eye is upon them and not to say anything contradictory to ground control.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

[edit on 22-9-2006 by saint4God]

Arent there anymore people who find the explenations by NASA disturbing?
Or is everyone buying that this could again be space debris (remember space around earth is MASSIVE) as NASA says they are thinking.
My opninion is that this again are lies and they do know that we are not alone. They know most people buy these vague explenations becuz most people are not concerned in this matter.

The time will come that these sightings cant be denied by NASA.
We need some very close encounters