Convinced there is something out there?
Don Meers, the director of this documentary, is at the end. But will you be? And has he reason to?
Australian Skies sees Don Meers, an Australian director, make a trip with one Damien John Nott to Glass Mountains, a hilly location about 30 kilometer above Brisbane. Make a note of that. Nott claims that he sees unexplained phenomena on a daily basis. And he is not alone, others see them as well for Nott is an UFO magnet.
Meers states that it his aim to understand what people like Nott are witnessing, to explain these objects and to see an object himself. Meers method seems to be to fill the bulk of the movie with interviews, of which the one with Nott takes the biggest slice of the cake. We hear Nott making claims in the order of seeing hundreds of unknown objects, having hundreds of witnesses, photos and movies to boot.
This claim must of necessity lead to a selection of movies in which these strange phenomena are shown. And given the claim, one would expect the best of the crop. The ultimate irrefutable footage. And what do we get? We get a small sampling of crappy pixelated clips made with cameras flipping all over the place. Here is a man with hundreds of photos(he actually claims thousands) and lots of footage, but the documentary cannot give anything that is crystal clear. Nor is all of this evidence show examined in anyway. It is just shown. An ironical smile came to me when Nott at some point told how youtube was swarming with fake movies. You mean those movies that are purposely badly made as to hide that they are fake? If your movies are not like that, why do they appear to look exactly like them?
To add some more weight to the documentary Meers goes with Nott on a field trip in the hopes to get confronted by one of those many objects that seem to dodge the heels of Nott. It results in a wake at night for reasons unexplained. Strange objects only come out at night? Are they more visible at night? The crew and certain others stand around pointing at the black sky stating how they see this or that and instead of pointing the professional camera at the indicated objects(one claim: this cannot be seen by the naked eye!) Meers does nothing but instead uses the crappy footage that the others make with their swaying handhelds. Hello?
The remaining part of the movie splits in two parts. One in which the documentary tries to examine(or rather disprove) that the strange objects are drones, the other can best be collected with one term: conspiracy theories. As to the drones, the crew come to the conclusion that it cannot possibly be drones and, in a beautiful dichotomy, concludes that if it cannot be drones then it must be UFOs. Oh by the way, it cannot be planes either, because there are hardly any planes there. Oh aren't there? So let's see what are the busiest airports in Australia? Hmmm... Brisbane is number three of all Australian airports. Would that not amount to a lot of planes?
And then it inevitably comes down to conspiracy theories. If there is something of a litmus test for claims that can be dismissed to the dustbin then it must be the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy behind it all. With great irony Nott makes the claim that it would be odd for the government to send out a soundless drone over populated areas(why not?) and then later into the documentary he has no problem claiming that the government has a helicopter hovering over his house for 45 minutes. And more of this, strange men or the government is on to us. Now any documentary maker worth his metal would at this point have asked the question. Why would they?
And there lies the central weakness of the documentary. Remember that Meers wanted to understand what happened to Nott(and others), what these objects are and be confronted with one himself. Next to the question, are there even objects(this goes without saying apparently) Meers doesn't even try to be critical. He lets Nott talk on end in the documentary, but Meers never poses one critical question. Nor does he consult others outside the circle of ufo adaptees. Meers hands the UFO people a platform and uncritically allows them free reign to spout their claims without any critical opposition. I think that this is called: playing tennis without the net.
My take is that Meers wasn't convinced by what occurred during the making of the movie, he was already convinced when he started to make it. And this makes him biased and the documentary useless. This is documentary is preaching to the choir, it is utter pointless to convince anyone with a critical mind.
Don Meers, the director of this documentary, is at the end. But will you be? And has he reason to?
Australian Skies sees Don Meers, an Australian director, make a trip with one Damien John Nott to Glass Mountains, a hilly location about 30 kilometer above Brisbane. Make a note of that. Nott claims that he sees unexplained phenomena on a daily basis. And he is not alone, others see them as well for Nott is an UFO magnet.
Meers states that it his aim to understand what people like Nott are witnessing, to explain these objects and to see an object himself. Meers method seems to be to fill the bulk of the movie with interviews, of which the one with Nott takes the biggest slice of the cake. We hear Nott making claims in the order of seeing hundreds of unknown objects, having hundreds of witnesses, photos and movies to boot.
This claim must of necessity lead to a selection of movies in which these strange phenomena are shown. And given the claim, one would expect the best of the crop. The ultimate irrefutable footage. And what do we get? We get a small sampling of crappy pixelated clips made with cameras flipping all over the place. Here is a man with hundreds of photos(he actually claims thousands) and lots of footage, but the documentary cannot give anything that is crystal clear. Nor is all of this evidence show examined in anyway. It is just shown. An ironical smile came to me when Nott at some point told how youtube was swarming with fake movies. You mean those movies that are purposely badly made as to hide that they are fake? If your movies are not like that, why do they appear to look exactly like them?
To add some more weight to the documentary Meers goes with Nott on a field trip in the hopes to get confronted by one of those many objects that seem to dodge the heels of Nott. It results in a wake at night for reasons unexplained. Strange objects only come out at night? Are they more visible at night? The crew and certain others stand around pointing at the black sky stating how they see this or that and instead of pointing the professional camera at the indicated objects(one claim: this cannot be seen by the naked eye!) Meers does nothing but instead uses the crappy footage that the others make with their swaying handhelds. Hello?
The remaining part of the movie splits in two parts. One in which the documentary tries to examine(or rather disprove) that the strange objects are drones, the other can best be collected with one term: conspiracy theories. As to the drones, the crew come to the conclusion that it cannot possibly be drones and, in a beautiful dichotomy, concludes that if it cannot be drones then it must be UFOs. Oh by the way, it cannot be planes either, because there are hardly any planes there. Oh aren't there? So let's see what are the busiest airports in Australia? Hmmm... Brisbane is number three of all Australian airports. Would that not amount to a lot of planes?
And then it inevitably comes down to conspiracy theories. If there is something of a litmus test for claims that can be dismissed to the dustbin then it must be the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy behind it all. With great irony Nott makes the claim that it would be odd for the government to send out a soundless drone over populated areas(why not?) and then later into the documentary he has no problem claiming that the government has a helicopter hovering over his house for 45 minutes. And more of this, strange men or the government is on to us. Now any documentary maker worth his metal would at this point have asked the question. Why would they?
And there lies the central weakness of the documentary. Remember that Meers wanted to understand what happened to Nott(and others), what these objects are and be confronted with one himself. Next to the question, are there even objects(this goes without saying apparently) Meers doesn't even try to be critical. He lets Nott talk on end in the documentary, but Meers never poses one critical question. Nor does he consult others outside the circle of ufo adaptees. Meers hands the UFO people a platform and uncritically allows them free reign to spout their claims without any critical opposition. I think that this is called: playing tennis without the net.
My take is that Meers wasn't convinced by what occurred during the making of the movie, he was already convinced when he started to make it. And this makes him biased and the documentary useless. This is documentary is preaching to the choir, it is utter pointless to convince anyone with a critical mind.