Wow, I love this episode to no end, the 90's, early 2000's remakes of Outer Limits were not as good as the originals (thought the Outer Limits remakes were much better then TZ remakes), but this is the one episode in either series that can stand with any episode in the original 1950's series.
@VioletFlame137 Wrong. We can clearly see star formation. Tired Light? Nonsense. There are countless proofs, tests and verifications for stated scientific facts. None for the nonsense you mention. Of course it can all be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jesus, or whatever other silly childish nonsense you may believe in.
you call that bunker updated? they dont even have flat LCD monitor panels at the least! lol I suggest a superthin OLED screens and a microsft "coffee table" type of war table
@plutoniumtangent That comment I did was made 1 year ago dude. But seriously, the writers apparently didn't get creative enough to imagine flat screen monitors...
@Sempertacsil This episode was supposed to be set in the year it was made, as far as I can tell. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, we still had CRT monitors back in 1995. And even if the writer had thought of flatscreen monitors, I doubt Outer Limits would have had the budget to attempt working props. Probably just simpler to grab a couple of CRT monitors.
Is man the center of universe made in the image of his god, or is mankind merely the temperany occupant of a insignificant world about to be extingished?
Reading through past comments reminds me of why I love YouTube.
You could be watching a fucking video called "My cat opens the bathroom door" and the comments are all these vicious dialogues about the wars in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. And there's always mudslinging. :-)
but i guess thats the good thing about outer limits they make you think,,,,, thnk about it !! its impossible to see something moving towards you at the speed of light, becuz the light that reflects off of it, which allows us to see things, is moving at the same speed as the object !! therefore the lite never reflects ! only way to see something moving fast as light, would be if it was moving in any direction, except towards you ! LOL enjoy this brain teaser !
killing (I believe it was) 145.000 of his own people; I think back to when Hitler took over Poland and created concentration camps. Alls I'm saying is that when people say that we shouldn't be there, it just seems like we forget about what had happened in the past and we forget to learn from it. At first we didn't think Hitler was a threat to us but then look at what happened. So why with what I said previously would you say that Saddam isn't a threat to not only us but the world.
Iraq was resisting a resolution made by the United Nations organization not by the United States. The U.S. had no right to invade Iraq.
And guess who the American Petroleum Institute (API) has hired to negotiate the oil importation contracts for Iraqi oil. Yes that's right, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush, father of George W. Bush who invaded Iraq. Interesting coincidence don't you think? The members of the Bush family are about to become billionaires because of Iraqi oil.
Apparently HisDivineShadow245 is not capable of accomplishing anything by telling the truth. And so he needs to tells obvious lies and hope that people will believe what he is saying.
I have told no lies, I simply pointed out that your criticism of Bush's reaction to 9/11 was a stupid one and that your comments are illogical compared to even Bush's idiocy. So far, you have gone out of your way to prove me right.
Obviously the truth isn't working for you here. SO you need to tell lies while refusing to back up your claims. And the truth is that you are obviously utterly clueless about this subject.
Excuse me, but you seem to be just as confused as HisDivineShadow245. I never anything about Afghanistan. I certainly never said that the U.S. did not invade that country after 9/11. And yes, the U.S. did invade Iraq after 9/11. The Iraq war started on 3/20, 2003 which is after 9/11 2001. Try looking at a calender. In addition to the imaginary WMDs, part of the justification for the war was an alleged link between Iraq and Al-Qaida (who were thought to be behind the 9/11 attacks)
I never speculated on the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. I was talking about what was told to the public. That should have been obvious to you but apparently not. In fact, President Bush did justify the invasion of Iraq as part his response to terrorism and the elimination/prevention thereof.
Also, you seem to have missed my real point even though I stated it clearly several times. HisDivineShadow245 said that Bush's response was logical but then would not explain the logic of it.
If his name was George W. Bush, he would spent the first seven minutes sitting there reading a children's book. Then he would have spent hundreds of billions of dollars invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with causing the problem.
I'm not denying anything. It sounds like you're saying that G.W. knew that terrorists were attacking, yet he still read a book to a class of children. Not the case, he HAPPENED to be reading a book as it happened, it's not like he's got fuckin spidey senses for this type of happening.
Actually, he continued with the children's class after he was told about the second tower being hit and after it was directly stated to him "America is under attack".
You are right. The correct response would have been to panic in front of a whole class of children, which would have done nothing to prevent the doomed WTC towers from falling. Brilliant assessment.
What do you mean "still" avoiding saying anything about Iraq? I am not the same person you were debating the first time around. Seems to me that I am not the clueless one in this discussion.
Well, there is always room for improvement in the way things are written. I could have written that differently. Anyway, my original comment had two components working together in regards to President Bush's response to the attack on the U.S. They are the lack of response at the beginning and the pointless response of invading Iraq. Your response in regards to the first part made and no sense at all and you ignored the second part. Thus, I must note again that you are clueless.
I never thought you were the same person from the beginning you Moron. I already explained that the problem was with the way I worded that one comment. I think I am doing great for English being my second language. How is your Japanese!? And if you don't care about this discussion, then why do you keep replying to me? Nothing you are saying here makes any sense at all!!
If nothing I am saying makes sense to you, maybe you aren't the master of English you pretend to be - I think my comments have been quite clear. You are the one making unfounded assumptions, like that I agree with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, and have resorted to name-calling instead of intelligent arguments.
What do you mean your comments have been quite clear? The only thing you said is that Bush is logical. You have refused to provide any information to back that claim. Apparently you just can't admit you don't have anything to contribute to this subject!!
You said President Bush is logical. I am just asking you to explain the logic in his actions. But so far, you have refused to do that. Therefore, I can only assume that you are totally unable to do anything to prove your claim and you have absolutely no clue about this subject.
In addition, you are also a Liar!! You know, all the previous comments are still here. People will be able to read them and see that you are making false claims about what I had said to you.
Hey HisDumbassShadow245. You said that President Bush was logical in his response to the terrorist attacks. But so far, you have made absolutely no attempt to explain how his response was logical. Well, what are you waiting for!?
You are misquoting me (lying) again. I never said that you had said anything about Iraq. I already explained this very clearly before. You said that Bush's response to the terrorist attacks was logical. His invasion of Iraq was part of his response. So I asked you to explain the logic of invading Iraq as part of Bush's response.
You still have made no attempt to back up your claim that his response was logical. So I can only assume that you are not able to do it.
Look I'll give a reason why I think we invaded Iraq. See I sit here and think back to my history lessoin and what was said at the beginning of the episode called Tribunal. It was "It is said that those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. But what dangers await those who cannot forget the past, those obsessed with reliving it?" Basically what I'm saying is remember Desert Storm? Saddam tried taking over Kowait. Yeah we didn't find WMB's but when we put Saddam infront of a court for
Kuwait is not part of the United States. The U.S. had no obligation to defend it. The U.S. and allies went there to free the oil fields. You learned about it from a history lesson. I learned about it by being there. After the war ended, we were ordered to help rebuild the oil wells. I spent another six months in Kuwait as a soldier hauling oil drilling equipment and helping to assemble it. But you are right about one thing. We didn't learn from the past.
I need to translate into English when I post comments here. That is a real challenge. But my comments still make more sense than yours. So far, you have not contributed anything. As far as I can tell, you are just whining about nothing.
Of course I don't think you are the same person who started this discussion. Goodness you are slow!! I am just challenging you to explain how the invasion of Iraq was a proper response to the attack on the U.S. - since you think Bush is so logical.
You seem to be the one who is slow. I never said that I agreed with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq - once again you seem to be confusing me with someone who does.
There are people in this world who have legitimate and intelligent points of dissent with Bush's performance and policy and then there are people like you. I am not going to waste any more time responding to your name-calling and irrational assumptions. So have fun wasting your own time.
No!! You are either lying or confused or possibly both. I never said that you had said you agreed with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. In my previous comment I stated directly "just challenging you to explain how the invasion of Iraq was a proper response to the attack on the U.S. - since you think Bush is so logical". How can you not understand such a simple statement!? You are either pretending not to understand it or you really don't understand it which means you are not very smart!
i could have made this decision shoot it with all we have and lessen the damage plus some of the debree will hit our atmosphere thats the only way
deathtotubez 4 days ago
its always funny when youtube arguments bother people, just dont read them, stop trying to break it up like a mom
deathtotubez 5 days ago
Man, 80's to early 90's were the Golden Age of TV.
emmthreejonny 4 months ago
The main problem with this episode is that the women were right and the men were wrong, which only happens on Oprah.
ugalawdog98 5 months ago
@ugalawdog98 Ya might wanna add Dr. Phil to that..
Sempertacsil 4 months ago
Wow, I love this episode to no end, the 90's, early 2000's remakes of Outer Limits were not as good as the originals (thought the Outer Limits remakes were much better then TZ remakes), but this is the one episode in either series that can stand with any episode in the original 1950's series.
sflowers539 5 months ago
Outer solar system and its 100 million miles away? Thats not even as far as the asteroid belt! Fucking scriptwriters want sacking!
neil73 7 months ago
FUCKING ADVERTS YET AGAIN - WHATS THE MATTER WITH YOU TOSSERS
sockington1 11 months ago
@VioletFlame137 Wrong. We can clearly see star formation. Tired Light? Nonsense. There are countless proofs, tests and verifications for stated scientific facts. None for the nonsense you mention. Of course it can all be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jesus, or whatever other silly childish nonsense you may believe in.
wwwunitednuclear 1 year ago
HIGH CLASS PROBLEMS
opendtuning 1 year ago
This was the first episode of the new Outer Limits I saw and I still remember it.
Thanks for letting me see it again.
death2utubenow 1 year ago
Great episode way back from 1995 when I first saw it. **==
linebackertwo 1 year ago
you call that bunker updated? they dont even have flat LCD monitor panels at the least! lol I suggest a superthin OLED screens and a microsft "coffee table" type of war table
Sempertacsil 2 years ago
@Sempertacsil This was made in '95, dude.
plutoniumtangent 4 months ago
@plutoniumtangent That comment I did was made 1 year ago dude. But seriously, the writers apparently didn't get creative enough to imagine flat screen monitors...
Sempertacsil 4 months ago
Comment removed
plutoniumtangent 4 months ago
@Sempertacsil This episode was supposed to be set in the year it was made, as far as I can tell. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, we still had CRT monitors back in 1995. And even if the writer had thought of flatscreen monitors, I doubt Outer Limits would have had the budget to attempt working props. Probably just simpler to grab a couple of CRT monitors.
plutoniumtangent 4 months ago
Is man the center of universe made in the image of his god, or is mankind merely the temperany occupant of a insignificant world about to be extingished?
4lifeMrUntouchable 2 years ago 2
@4lifeMrUntouchable nope nothing extinguishes life on earth while i'm around
mitchellalien 1 year ago
Haha, thanks for sharing this classic!! I still remember it well. Not so much beside a possible reality, we're likely to shoot first.
Gezoes 2 years ago
If something's going to destroy the whole world, then what's the point in the president going down in the bunker?
There won't be anything left for him to be president of.
DayveIsh 2 years ago
@DayveIsh Well, you can say that about any crisis. It's not like when a crisis comes up we know for a fact how it'll end.
TomerMMHA 1 year ago
a rare show that gets defcon 5 (lowest) properly.
KairuHakubi 2 years ago
finally found it!!1 thx u!! my favoirite outer limits
selearemus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can you imagine Obama in this situation? Yes, we can! Can what, you douchebag? Hope is not a strategy, and change is not a destination.
ugalawdog98 2 years ago
Comment removed
ugalawdog98 2 years ago
Reading through past comments reminds me of why I love YouTube.
You could be watching a fucking video called "My cat opens the bathroom door" and the comments are all these vicious dialogues about the wars in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. And there's always mudslinging. :-)
DarthCormac 2 years ago 19
@DarthCormac lol thats true
dijornopizza 11 months ago
@DarthCormac
The comments are the best part of watching the videos LOL
5355vbxjbj76rvn 10 months ago
Is that Doctor Frasier from Stargate SG1?
HKgunner 2 years ago
Her character's name is even Janet in this episode. This version of Outer Limits was actually made by the same people who did SG-1.
ShadowSonic2 2 years ago
Actually they would know where it would hit.
All they have to do is draw a line from it to the earth. The planet will not move that much in 17 minutes
CandelarioGaIvan 2 years ago
but i guess thats the good thing about outer limits they make you think,,,,, thnk about it !! its impossible to see something moving towards you at the speed of light, becuz the light that reflects off of it, which allows us to see things, is moving at the same speed as the object !! therefore the lite never reflects ! only way to see something moving fast as light, would be if it was moving in any direction, except towards you ! LOL enjoy this brain teaser !
krazefool 2 years ago 3
Yes - but in this episode the speed was half the speed of light which would be observable from certain distances with th right equipment
rc2869 2 years ago
@krazefool wrong!
301001082 1 year ago
Comment removed
krazefool 2 years ago
Comment removed
krazefool 2 years ago
Great work uploding.
Even with something like this their would always be some survivors.
RJL738 2 years ago
you've seen one Outer Limit and you've seen them all /-:
Supenmanu 2 years ago
No. They're all about different sc-fi aspects.
nastynas9000 2 years ago
yeah, but can you name even ONE Outer Limits (new or old) that doesn't have invading Aliens or Robots gone berserk in them?
Supenmanu 2 years ago
killing (I believe it was) 145.000 of his own people; I think back to when Hitler took over Poland and created concentration camps. Alls I'm saying is that when people say that we shouldn't be there, it just seems like we forget about what had happened in the past and we forget to learn from it. At first we didn't think Hitler was a threat to us but then look at what happened. So why with what I said previously would you say that Saddam isn't a threat to not only us but the world.
shirleyphelps32 3 years ago
Iraq was resisting a resolution made by the United Nations organization not by the United States. The U.S. had no right to invade Iraq.
And guess who the American Petroleum Institute (API) has hired to negotiate the oil importation contracts for Iraqi oil. Yes that's right, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush, father of George W. Bush who invaded Iraq. Interesting coincidence don't you think? The members of the Bush family are about to become billionaires because of Iraqi oil.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Hitlar just cleared teh gene pool
KensaimasterWung 3 years ago
incorrect, the fact that you exist proves the falsity of your statement.
ballantrae101 2 years ago
Wat u say?
KensaimasterWung 2 years ago
Hey who does the intro and the beginning and ending things? Is it what's his name who just died who did all these different movie trailers?
shirleyphelps32 3 years ago
anyone else recognize the first lady? she was in mommy dearest, that awfully bad movey
BlueEyesFTW 3 years ago
Diana Scarwid!
That bitch of a mother from The Cure with Brad Renfro!
She sure looks pretty.
Godzillaman 3 years ago
Stop wasting the internet you two!
shallowlife 3 years ago 4
Apparently HisDivineShadow245 is not capable of accomplishing anything by telling the truth. And so he needs to tells obvious lies and hope that people will believe what he is saying.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I have told no lies, I simply pointed out that your criticism of Bush's reaction to 9/11 was a stupid one and that your comments are illogical compared to even Bush's idiocy. So far, you have gone out of your way to prove me right.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
Obviously the truth isn't working for you here. SO you need to tell lies while refusing to back up your claims. And the truth is that you are obviously utterly clueless about this subject.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
ummm... not tht i'm an expert, but... didn't america invade AFGHANISTAN, after 9/11? not Iraq.
Iraq, was all about potential threat from WMDs and removing a well known dictator from power... *cough* OIL *cough*
munkytron 3 years ago
Excuse me, but you seem to be just as confused as HisDivineShadow245. I never anything about Afghanistan. I certainly never said that the U.S. did not invade that country after 9/11. And yes, the U.S. did invade Iraq after 9/11. The Iraq war started on 3/20, 2003 which is after 9/11 2001. Try looking at a calender. In addition to the imaginary WMDs, part of the justification for the war was an alleged link between Iraq and Al-Qaida (who were thought to be behind the 9/11 attacks)
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I never speculated on the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. I was talking about what was told to the public. That should have been obvious to you but apparently not. In fact, President Bush did justify the invasion of Iraq as part his response to terrorism and the elimination/prevention thereof.
Also, you seem to have missed my real point even though I stated it clearly several times. HisDivineShadow245 said that Bush's response was logical but then would not explain the logic of it.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
who cares about the debate-- I love the sarcasm your displaying to my friend here ;>
BlueEyesFTW 3 years ago
If his name was George W. Bush, he would spent the first seven minutes sitting there reading a children's book. Then he would have spent hundreds of billions of dollars invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with causing the problem.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Fuck you I hope a crow gouges out your eyeballs
101piesaregood 3 years ago
Can you effectively deny that was Bush's response to an attack on the U.S.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I'm not denying anything. It sounds like you're saying that G.W. knew that terrorists were attacking, yet he still read a book to a class of children. Not the case, he HAPPENED to be reading a book as it happened, it's not like he's got fuckin spidey senses for this type of happening.
101piesaregood 3 years ago
Actually, he continued with the children's class after he was told about the second tower being hit and after it was directly stated to him "America is under attack".
And what about Iraq?
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
You are right. The correct response would have been to panic in front of a whole class of children, which would have done nothing to prevent the doomed WTC towers from falling. Brilliant assessment.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
You are clueless!! He could have politely excused himself. And I notice you are still avoiding saying anything about the invasion of Iraq.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
What do you mean "still" avoiding saying anything about Iraq? I am not the same person you were debating the first time around. Seems to me that I am not the clueless one in this discussion.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
Well, there is always room for improvement in the way things are written. I could have written that differently. Anyway, my original comment had two components working together in regards to President Bush's response to the attack on the U.S. They are the lack of response at the beginning and the pointless response of invading Iraq. Your response in regards to the first part made and no sense at all and you ignored the second part. Thus, I must note again that you are clueless.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Once again, you still have not come to the realization that I am not the same person you started the debate with. You are still being 100% clueless.
I am not even a fan of Bush (quite the opposite, actually) and can say that his thought processes make more logical sense than yours do.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
I never thought you were the same person from the beginning you Moron. I already explained that the problem was with the way I worded that one comment. I think I am doing great for English being my second language. How is your Japanese!? And if you don't care about this discussion, then why do you keep replying to me? Nothing you are saying here makes any sense at all!!
And what about Iraq?
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
If nothing I am saying makes sense to you, maybe you aren't the master of English you pretend to be - I think my comments have been quite clear. You are the one making unfounded assumptions, like that I agree with Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, and have resorted to name-calling instead of intelligent arguments.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
What do you mean your comments have been quite clear? The only thing you said is that Bush is logical. You have refused to provide any information to back that claim. Apparently you just can't admit you don't have anything to contribute to this subject!!
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
You said President Bush is logical. I am just asking you to explain the logic in his actions. But so far, you have refused to do that. Therefore, I can only assume that you are totally unable to do anything to prove your claim and you have absolutely no clue about this subject.
In addition, you are also a Liar!! You know, all the previous comments are still here. People will be able to read them and see that you are making false claims about what I had said to you.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Hey HisDumbassShadow245. You said that President Bush was logical in his response to the terrorist attacks. But so far, you have made absolutely no attempt to explain how his response was logical. Well, what are you waiting for!?
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I said his line of reasoning in GENERAL (I never mentioned Iraq specifically, idiot) is way more logical than any of the comments you've made.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
You are misquoting me (lying) again. I never said that you had said anything about Iraq. I already explained this very clearly before. You said that Bush's response to the terrorist attacks was logical. His invasion of Iraq was part of his response. So I asked you to explain the logic of invading Iraq as part of Bush's response.
You still have made no attempt to back up your claim that his response was logical. So I can only assume that you are not able to do it.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Look I'll give a reason why I think we invaded Iraq. See I sit here and think back to my history lessoin and what was said at the beginning of the episode called Tribunal. It was "It is said that those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. But what dangers await those who cannot forget the past, those obsessed with reliving it?" Basically what I'm saying is remember Desert Storm? Saddam tried taking over Kowait. Yeah we didn't find WMB's but when we put Saddam infront of a court for
shirleyphelps32 3 years ago
Kuwait is not part of the United States. The U.S. had no obligation to defend it. The U.S. and allies went there to free the oil fields. You learned about it from a history lesson. I learned about it by being there. After the war ended, we were ordered to help rebuild the oil wells. I spent another six months in Kuwait as a soldier hauling oil drilling equipment and helping to assemble it. But you are right about one thing. We didn't learn from the past.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I need to translate into English when I post comments here. That is a real challenge. But my comments still make more sense than yours. So far, you have not contributed anything. As far as I can tell, you are just whining about nothing.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
I think you need to re-read this entire discussion. You are the only one whining here. Nobody else cares.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
Of course I don't think you are the same person who started this discussion. Goodness you are slow!! I am just challenging you to explain how the invasion of Iraq was a proper response to the attack on the U.S. - since you think Bush is so logical.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
You seem to be the one who is slow. I never said that I agreed with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq - once again you seem to be confusing me with someone who does.
There are people in this world who have legitimate and intelligent points of dissent with Bush's performance and policy and then there are people like you. I am not going to waste any more time responding to your name-calling and irrational assumptions. So have fun wasting your own time.
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
No!! You are either lying or confused or possibly both. I never said that you had said you agreed with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. In my previous comment I stated directly "just challenging you to explain how the invasion of Iraq was a proper response to the attack on the U.S. - since you think Bush is so logical". How can you not understand such a simple statement!? You are either pretending not to understand it or you really don't understand it which means you are not very smart!
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago
Doctor Fraiser!!! :D
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
Mr. President's got a dishy wife. ;D
HisDivineShadow245 3 years ago
That will help when it comes time to repopulate the species.
YamadaKeisai 3 years ago