There are two parts to this "documentary" in my view. One is the focus on Damien John Nott, which should be completely disregarded due to his extraordinary claims and the extraordinary LACK of evidence.
The second part, which is actually important, is the automatic "labeling" of people who see "something" in the sky. 100% of the video evidence in this film is "unidentified", and thus are U.F.O's. These do need to be explained and/or identified, but do to the stigma of people claiming to see these objects more often than not, fail to report them. This is a problem.
While I agree with Damien on this issue, his other claims, such as his so called "chip" actually made me laugh out loud. What he explained and the way he explained it is EXACTLY how a common cyst would react.
The second part, which is actually important, is the automatic "labeling" of people who see "something" in the sky. 100% of the video evidence in this film is "unidentified", and thus are U.F.O's. These do need to be explained and/or identified, but do to the stigma of people claiming to see these objects more often than not, fail to report them. This is a problem.
While I agree with Damien on this issue, his other claims, such as his so called "chip" actually made me laugh out loud. What he explained and the way he explained it is EXACTLY how a common cyst would react.