UFO HIT BY MISSILE?
Thomas Guber
shot by an astronaut aboard the shuttle Atlantis which showed what might
have been a UFO being hit by what might have been a missile.
I saw the clip and thought it was intriguing to say the least, however
I lost track of the story and never heard any follow up, official
explanation, or further conjecture as to what the video actually showed.
I'm sure the video must have been discussed extensively here at that time,
can anyone give me an update?
Thankx
Tom
Dean Adams
>About a year ago, a television show (Sightings?) aired video reportedly
>shot by an astronaut aboard the shuttle Atlantis which showed what might
>have been a UFO being hit by what might have been a missile.
No, nothing of the sort. The main thing it shows is some ice particles
being pushed around by a Shuttle RCS maneuvering thruster firing.
>I saw the clip and thought it was intriguing to say the least
I have it on tape, and was not the least bit intrigued...
More like pretty annoyed by all the "ufo experts" who clearly
didn't know a thing about the Space Shuttle.
Steven D. Timpson
> In article <xy7Nbo...@delphi.com> Thomas Guber <tg...@delphi.com> writes:
> >shot by an astronaut aboard the shuttle Atlantis which showed what might
> >have been a UFO being hit by what might have been a missile.
>
> being pushed around by a Shuttle RCS maneuvering thruster firing.
>
> >I saw the clip and thought it was intriguing to say the least
>
> I have it on tape, and was not the least bit intrigued...
> More like pretty annoyed by all the "ufo experts" who clearly
> didn't know a thing about the Space Shuttle.
>
>
This was a RSC maneuvering rocket and ICE as was mentioned here. It is
soooooo obvious that my 10 year old saw it and my 2 month old could figure
it out.
-
Steve Food_for_the_Greys/Reptoids
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the Universe
and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants
of their human interests.
-- George Santayana
George Sanderson
> was a RSC maneuvering rocket and ICE as was mentioned here. It is
> soooooo obvious that my 10 year old saw it and my 2 month old could
> figure it out.
Bullshit ? I would have bought the ice story but that little "streak"
of particles shooting up exactly at the same spot of the "ice" doesn't
fit too well into the ice theory. I am not suggesting that the ice is
some alien ship, but the current ice theory is too simple to explain
everything in that video.
Dean Adams
In article <2pd6fp$r...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au> aiss...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (George Sanderson) writes:
>> How many more times do we have to go through this BS...??!?!?!? This
>> was a RSC maneuvering rocket and ICE as was mentioned here. It is
>> soooooo obvious that my 10 year old saw it and my 2 month old could
>> figure it out.
>
>Bullshit ? I would have bought the ice story but that little "streak"
>of particles shooting up exactly at the same spot of the "ice" doesn't
>fit too well into the ice theory.
There is no "streak"... just a lot of particles floating around.
>I am not suggesting that the ice is some alien ship, but the current
> ice theory is too simple to explain everything in that video.
Sometimes simple theories is all it takes.
Mark Smith
> have been a UFO being hit by what might have been a missile.
>
> can anyone give me an update?
Don't bother looking for anything here. There are many folks here that
refuse to allow their minds to open up and see other possibilities. Some
how folks here managed to turn a discussion about the footage into an
argument about the starwars project. That object zipping past the
UFO is seen by some here as a "lazer beam". The UFO was not hit by
anything. At least not on the portion I have. This use to be a good place
to discuss the possibility of aliens visiting our humble home. Now it's the
internet's virsion of the Enquierer. Folks here don't post facts they post
outlandish claims based on nothing. One person that was here for a while
was posting real info. He abandoned this place after being flamed for
posting good info. It's sad. Try alt.paranet
I hang around here hoping to see this group go back to what it's intended
topic. There are a few folks here that do stck to the subject, but not that
many. This place should be changed to alt.newage.fantasies IMHO.
Thomas Guber
that the initial "object" even appeared to veer from its initial trajectory
just prior to being impacted by the secont "object.
Now, admittedly, I am no expert on either UFOs or the Space Shuttle, but
I assume that the astronaut who released the clip was probably more know-
ledgable in both areas than any "net surfer" and evidently he thought it
when it caught his attention in the viewfinder of his
camera.
I'd like to know if anyone knows where I can get a copy of the video.
Thanx
Tom
Steven D. Timpson
> > How many more times do we have to go through this BS...??!?!?!? This
> > was a RSC maneuvering rocket and ICE as was mentioned here. It is
> > soooooo obvious that my 10 year old saw it and my 2 month old could
> > figure it out.
>
> of particles shooting up exactly at the same spot of the "ice" doesn't
> fit too well into the ice theory. I am not suggesting that the ice is
> some alien ship, but the current ice theory is too simple to explain
> everything in that video.
>
>
>
-
Steve tattoed_food_for_the_greys/reptoids
Mark Smith
> The current ice fact explains it perfectly. You can go back to sleep now.
> -
> Steve tattoed_food_for_the_greys/reptoids
Maybe for those who don't want to really look at the footage. That ice
"fact" is a load of crap. It doesn't explain a damn thing. Yeah, ice in
space can make sharp turns in space and accelerate (sp?). And if you swallow
watermelon seeds they'll grow in your stomach. It's a fact. ;-)
STEVE TIMPSON
Mark Smith (Mark.Smith%es...@cg57.esnet.com) wrote:
God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by the exhaust of
an RCS jet wil make VERY sharp turns.
Go back to sleep and stay that way.
Steve Food_for_the_Greys/REptoids
Scott Hall
Tuesday May 03 1994 13:22, STEVE TIMPSON wrote to All:
ST> God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by the
exhaust
ST> of an RCS jet wil make VERY sharp turns.
And ice is the used for target practice from the Earths surface. Yep.
Regards,
Scott.
FidoNet: 3:712/393
InterNet: sh...@tmx.mhs.oz.au
...I used to say, I'll believe it when _I_ see it. (Ed Walters, Gulf Breeze)
* Origin: A.L.I.E.N. BBS * Sydney Australia * +61-2-743-5871 (3:712/393)
Dean Adams
In article <76820040...@tmx.mhs.oz.au> Scott.Hall%f393.n...@fidonet.org (Scott Hall) writes:
>Tuesday May 03 1994 13:22, STEVE TIMPSON wrote to All:
> ST> God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by the
Exactly...
>And ice is the used for target practice from the Earths surface. Yep.
Only in certain people's (wild) imagination.
Jon Stanley
The story I heard is that the ice crystals entered into the exhaust
stream from the shuttle's attitude adjusters. This caused their quick
change of direction. When the film is examined and the time at which
the alleged ice changes course is noted, it matches perfectly with the
records of when the shuttle fired its adjusters.
Jon S.
Dean Adams
>The story I heard is that the ice crystals entered into the exhaust
>stream from the shuttle's attitude adjusters. This caused their quick
>change of direction. When the film is examined and the time at which
>the alleged ice changes course is noted, it matches perfectly with the
>records of when the shuttle fired its adjusters.
You don't even need to check the records, since the flash
of an RCS firing is perfectly visible right in the video.
Gary Allen P000
|>
|> In article <76820040...@tmx.mhs.oz.au> Scott.Hall%f393.n...@fidonet.org (Scott Hall) writes:
|> >Tuesday May 03 1994 13:22, STEVE TIMPSON wrote to All:
|> > ST> God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by the
|> > ST> exhaust of an RCS jet wil make VERY sharp turns.
|
I thought it was established that the object you refer to as ice
was 17,000 miles away. The Monument of Mars video has a good
explanation of this.
--
Gary
Bravo, tango !!
Bravo, tango !!
STEVE TIMPSON
Oh! Neat trick since there is nothing in the original video to give
anyone a distance reference point. Nice try but no go.
Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
Chuck Zukowski
Could they have been altered to coincide with the firing of its attitude
adjusters? (just a thought)
chuck..
#########################################################################
# * __ * * #
# ____________ _____/--\____ * //-A-\\ * #
# \______ ___) (_ _ .. ____) ___---=======---___ #
# * __| |_______/ / `--'.. .... ......... (=__\ /.. ..\ /__=) #
# ) ........ `(- ---\__O__/--- #
# * \------------' * * #
#########################################################################
# Captain! The records show the phaser fired. That's impossible Spock! #
#########################################################################
Michael W Simon
Actually, the object brightens when it goes through the airglow layer.
Indicating it went through the atmosphere which would put it at the
distance to the airglow from the shuttle. At that distance the ice would
have to be pretty damn big. Hoagland gives clear evidence that it was
not ice. Ice don't glow like that and hover and change direction.
>Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
Dean Adams
>|> God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by the
>|
>I thought it was established that the object you refer to as ice
>was 17,000 miles away.
Ha! Funny. It *was* moving at about 17,500 mph however.
I guess that means it MUST have been an alien, right? :->
> The Monument of Mars video has a good explanation of this.
bwhahaha!! I bet... Perhaps it should "explain" how hoagland can pull the
wool over some people's eyes, and make a few bucks for himself in the process.
Dean Adams
> Jon, the shuttle records you are referring to, in your opinion,
>Could they have been altered to coincide with the firing of its attitude
>adjusters?
The only thing "altered" is the imaginations of the people who see "aliens"
in that video. I'm not sure which "shuttle records" were being referred to,
but they are irrelevant since the RCS firing is a perfectly clear part of
the VIDEO record.
STEVE TIMPSON
[stuff deleted]
: >: was 17,000 miles away. The Monument of Mars video has a good
: >: explanation of this.
: >--
: >Oh! Neat trick since there is nothing in the original video to give
: >anyone a distance reference point. Nice try but no go.
: Actually, the object brightens when it goes through the airglow layer.
: Indicating it went through the atmosphere which would put it at the
: distance to the airglow from the shuttle. At that distance the ice would
: have to be pretty damn big. Hoagland gives clear evidence that it was
: not ice. Ice don't glow like that and hover and change direction.
Hoagland is a fraud. Nuff said.
You can go back to sleep now.
Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
Dean Adams
In article <CpML5...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
> Hoagland gives clear evidence that it was not ice.
Oh, please... that guy does not even know the meaning of "clear evidence".
This is the same person who insists that a poor quality image of a cheap
rock formation is "clear evidence" of aliens on mars. And he turned that
same ONE image into the basis for a huge crop of wild fiction, and a great
way to make a nice crop of cash for himself and become some sort of bigshot
"expert" among certain ufo types. He's definitely got a good scam going,
but anyone who could actually take his nonsense seriously is rather seriously
deluding themselves. The guy is a perfect epitome of the term "QUACK"...
> Ice don't glow like that and hover and change direction.
Ice "glows" a LOT, just like anything in orbit that reflects/refracts
sunlight, and it damn well DOES change direction when hit by an RCS blast.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hover", but that sounds like a rather
amusing term to describe an object in orbit. :->
Michael W Simon
>Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
True brilliance from a debunker. Hoagland will receive many accolades in
the near future. Considering Hoagland has recently won the first
international Angstrom Medal for excellence in science outside of Sweden
for his Mars investigation work, he is off to a decent start.
Rich Payne
a coma (like a comet) when hit by the hot gasses from the RSC thruster.
Obviously NASA must be in on the conspiracy.
>>Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
Rich
--
Dean Adams
In article <Cpo8r...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>timp...@iia.org (STEVE TIMPSON) writes:
>>Hoagland is a fraud. Nuff said.
>>You can go back to sleep now.
>
>the near future.
I'm sure he will... they seem to be manufacturing "accolades" to
padd his resume almost as fast as he makes up new mars/moon/etc.
conspiracy nonsense. I'm sure it is good for revenues...
Michael W Simon
>Rich
It is quite humorous how on all subsequent missions the outside cameras
were turned off.
John A. Presser
I'm sure he will... they seem to be manufacturing "accolades" to
padd his resume almost as fast as he makes up new mars/moon/etc.
conspiracy nonsense. I'm sure it is good for revenues...<<
Well, all right. Which "accolades" have been manufactured and who
manufactured them? Be specific. What exactly has he "made up" and what
evidence does he provide that you can empirically falsify? You are sure what
is good for whose revenues? Please list the amounts of money Hoagland has
made, deduct his expenses, give his net worth.
There is a difference between challenging a claim with facts and
information, and simply expressing an attitude with nothing substantive to
back it up. Rich Payner makes this sort of statement all the time--and then
he gives his reasons. What are yours?
Dean Adams
In article <Cpp3H...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>>>>Neat trick since there is nothing in the original video to give
>>>>anyone a distance reference point. Nice try but no go.
>
>were turned off.
>
Oh, really... and exactly who told you that blatant LIE?
What is "humorous" (or sad actually), is that anyone could
be so conditioned to believe and so divorced from reality
to actually accept such total nonsense as the truth.
Thanks for such a clear insight into the warped version
of reality you hoagies are living in...
Dean Adams
In article <9405122317594...@delphi.com> nef...@delphi.com (John A. Presser) writes:
>Please list the amounts of money Hoagland has
>made, deduct his expenses, give his net worth.
Yes, please do!
>he gives his reasons. What are yours?
Nothing, other than being fed up with such a fraud and tired
of the blatantly false nonsense he is constantly dishing out
to his ever-paying audience of eager, misinformed followers.
Michael W Simon
>Yes, please do!
Including Nasa right? Richard had two conferences at Nasa about his Mars
research. The only fraud in the whole case is misinformation from
debunkers. Most reasonable people that have seen the complete data
including fractal analysis etc, have doubts about the naturalness of the
area.
Dean Adams
>Including Nasa right? Richard had two conferences at Nasa about
>his Mars research.
Are you criticizing them for listening? I suppose you think its
all part of the "conspiracy".
> The only fraud in the whole case is misinformation from debunkers.
I am constantly seeing BLATANTLY FALSE information about NASA and
other issues being attributed to this Hoagland of yours. Everything
from the Shuttle, Mars Observer, and Clementine... pure hyped up
bullshit. Totally warped versions of the truth, all engineered
to bolster the wild "conspiracy" nonsense, and all originating from
the same source. Add the fact that he charges people MONEY for these
"truths", and if that isn't a fraud I don't know what is...
If he changed the name of his show to a "fantasy extravaganza" or
something and laid off the NASA slandering, then it might be a
different story and he would be more of a legitimate businessman
rather than a fraud and con artist... but I doubt that will happen.
>Most reasonable people that have seen the complete data including
> fractal analysis etc, have doubts about the naturalness of the area.
Oh, brother... of course!
As far as i'm concerned, that "face" is totally meaningless.
It barely even looks like a face at all! I'd be more curious
to find out what caused the pyramid structure. Unfortunately
that has been rather tainted by even more hoagie lunacy, since
he couldn't resist the profit potential of dreaming up the whole
ridiculous earth pyramid worshipper and "numerology" type crap
to add yet another layer of mindless fantasy to his story...
Michael W Simon
>Oh, brother... of course!
What are your credentials and your data that eliminates all the fractal
analysis, shape from shading techniques, computer enhancement etc?
Do you have a Phd in anything? If no, then look at the data from experts
in their fields.
Michael W Simon
>Oh, brother... of course!
Another debunker. No data. Just mention conspiracy to eliminate
credibility. There is no numerology pyramid worshipping in hoagland's
data. All you do is call people names to discredit. Big deal. You don't
have to think it looks like a face at all. Did you expect Marilyn Monroe
or something? Every hear of primitive man etc.
John A. Presser
>made, deduct his expenses, give his net worth.
Yes, please do!
>he gives his reasons. What are yours?
Nothing, other than being fed up with such a fraud and tired
of the blatantly false nonsense he is constantly dishing out
to his ever-paying audience of eager, misinformed followers.<<
Well, thank you so much for letting us know that you are not only
ignorant, you intend to stay that way. Does the term ad hominem mean
anything to you? How about loaded words, irrelevancies, insufficient data
fallacy?
Nothing is right...that's all you have to offer.
Unknown
and was forwarded to you by BREED
--------------------
Path:
planet!isdnlin.mtsu.edu!darwin.sura.net!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!charnel.ecst
.csuchico.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.
edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: UFO HIT BY MISSILE?
Message-ID: <paynerCp...@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 04:55:46 GMT
References: <76820040...@tmx.mhs.oz.au>
<1994May9.2...@brtph560.bnr.ca> <2qojl2$p...@mary.iia.org>
<CpML5...@world.std.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Lines: 38
In article <CpML5...@world.std.com>,
Michael W Simon <Uni...@world.std.com> wrote:
>timp...@iia.org (STEVE TIMPSON) writes:
>
>>Gary Allen P000 (gal...@brtph832.bnr.ca) wrote:
>>: In article <dadamsCp...@netcom.com>, dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
writes:
>>: |>
>>: |> In article <76820040...@tmx.mhs.oz.au>
Scott.Hall%f393.n...@fidonet.org (Scott Hall) writes:
>>: |> >Tuesday May 03 1994 13:22, STEVE TIMPSON wrote to All:
>>: |> > ST> God helpus another wakes up. Ice or anything that is hit by
the
>>: |> > ST> exhaust of an RCS jet wil make VERY sharp turns.
>>: |
>
>>: I thought it was established that the object you refer to as ice
>>: was 17,000 miles away. The Monument of Mars video has a good
>>: explanation of this.
>>--
>>Oh! Neat trick since there is nothing in the original video to give
>>anyone a distance reference point. Nice try but no go.
>
>Actually, the object brightens when it goes through the airglow layer.
>Indicating it went through the atmosphere which would put it at the
>distance to the airglow from the shuttle. At that distance the ice would
>have to be pretty damn big. Hoagland gives clear evidence that it was
>not ice. Ice don't glow like that and hover and change direction.
Of course not, and only a fool would believe that ice would develop
a coma (like a comet) when hit by the hot gasses from the RSC thruster.
Obviously NASA must be in on the conspiracy.
>>Steve Food_for_the_Greys\Reptoids
Rich
--
Michael Martin
>
>In article <Cpp3H...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>>>>>Neat trick since there is nothing in the original video to give
>>>>>anyone a distance reference point. Nice try but no go.
>>
>>It is quite humorous how on all subsequent missions the outside cameras
>>were turned off.
>>
>
>Oh, really... and exactly who told you that blatant LIE?
Why, do you have evidence to the contrary? Why didn't you give some facts
to dispute the claim? Do you have any facts, or do you just like to post
vauge unsubstantiated accusations that make you look like you know what you
are talking about?
>
>What is "humorous" (or sad actually), is that anyone could
>be so conditioned to believe and so divorced from reality
>to actually accept such total nonsense as the truth.
>
>Thanks for such a clear insight into the warped version
>of reality you hoagies are living in...
>
What is really sad, and sick, is that instead of educating us with facts as to
why you think this version of reality is warped, you just insult people.
In an environment that is ideal for the exchange of information all you can
do is act like an ignorant bully. Your insults and taunts only make people
tune you out. Next time use that four pounds of gray matter you are so proud
of.
mm
Dean Adams
In article <1994May23.1...@ttd.teradyne.com> mar...@ttd.teradyne.com (Michael Martin) writes:
>In article <dadamsCp...@netcom.com> dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>>In article <Cpp3H...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>>>It is quite humorous how on all subsequent missions the outside cameras
>>>were turned off.
>>
>>Oh, really... and exactly who told you that blatant LIE?
>
>Why, do you have evidence to the contrary?
Evidence? Hahahahaha!!
Anyone with even half a clue would know that was complete NONSENSE.
It would take someone so totally out of touch with reality that they
probably have never even SEEN anything from the space shuttle before
to believe such a ridiculous claim.
> Why didn't you give some facts to dispute the claim?
Oh, brother... I watch the LIVE video from those "outside cameras"
during every shuttle mission! The fact that you are arguing FOR such
an obviously false claim only proves that you too know nothing at all
about the shuttle. Congratulations.
Michael W Simon
>In article <1994May23.1...@ttd.teradyne.com> mar...@ttd.teradyne.com (Michael Martin) writes:
>>In article <dadamsCp...@netcom.com> dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>>>In article <Cpp3H...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>>>>It is quite humorous how on all subsequent missions the outside cameras
>>>>were turned off.
>>>
>>>Oh, really... and exactly who told you that blatant LIE?
>>
>>Why, do you have evidence to the contrary?
>Evidence? Hahahahaha!!
>Anyone with even half a clue would know that was complete NONSENSE.
>It would take someone so totally out of touch with reality that they
>probably have never even SEEN anything from the space shuttle before
>to believe such a ridiculous claim.
> > Why didn't you give some facts to dispute the claim?
>Oh, brother... I watch the LIVE video from those "outside cameras"
>during every shuttle mission! The fact that you are arguing FOR such
>an obviously false claim only proves that you too know nothing at all
>about the shuttle. Congratulations.
Subsequent shuttle missions had their outside cameras scrambled. More
recently there is a one minute delay. Why the scrambling and why the one
minute delay now?
Dean Adams
In article <CqG42...@world.std.com> Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>Subsequent shuttle missions had their outside cameras scrambled.
"subsequent" implies a connection which does not exist,
and your understanding of the "outside cameras" and the
video systems involved is clearly very limited... since
there is no difference between outside, inside, etc.
> More recently there is a one minute delay.
Wrong.
> Why the scrambling and why the one minute delay now?
There is no "one minute delay". As for the rest, the satellite feed
between the NASA Ground Terminal at White Sands and JSC in Houston
now uses a Leitch commercial video encryption system. The main reason
given was for purposes such as astronaut private medical conferences.
The bottom line is that the end result is no difference, since the
video from that channel is always relayed to the public channel.
The video downlinked from other ground stations is not scrambled.
Defender of the Faith
If you had been reading dean's posts for more that 3 days, you would
know that you are not bringing anything new to this "debate."
You are the one who appears ignorant. Dean has gone into the same damn
details over & over & frankly I commend him for it. But Here comes Mr
Martin, brimming with righteous rage, never realizing that he is
entering into an ongoing forum, never realizing that he is raising that
same stupid questions that dean has answered a dozen times prevously.
Here is some news for you, Martin: USENET did not spring miraculously
into existence when YOU discovered it! You are the one who is being tuned
out, by me, right now.
>mm
--
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out
of the barrel of a gun." _Problems_of_War_and_Strategy_, Mao
Defender of the Faith
>dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) writes:
>
>>Oh, brother... I watch the LIVE video from those "outside cameras"
>>during every shuttle mission! The fact that you are arguing FOR such
>>an obviously false claim only proves that you too know nothing at all
>>about the shuttle. Congratulations.
>
>Subsequent shuttle missions had their outside cameras scrambled. More
>recently there is a one minute delay. Why the scrambling and why the one
>minute delay now?
Why, so that nobody will be able to see the SPACE BATTLES going on!
Oh, why can't Earth-based telescopes see the SPACE BATTLES? I suppose
for the same reason that there is no falling debris, no RF interference,
no massive radiation storms from the "directed energy beam". Yes, in
the world of the FUTURE, only cameras mounted on the outside of
the space shuttle will be able to detect SPACE BATTLES!!!
Dean Adams
In article <23...@duke.cs.duke.edu> ing...@cs.duke.edu writes:
>In article A...@world.std.com, Uni...@world.std.com (Michael W Simon) writes:
>> Why the scrambling and why the one minute delay now?
>
>Why, so that nobody will be able to see the SPACE BATTLES going on!
Aww, gee whiz... and I *love* that stuff!! :->
Guess i'll have to settle for reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel.