There may be a compelling story somewhere in this documentary, but it is so poorly organized and terriblly produced that it is about impossible to follow the sotry line. The 2 men in the documentary are talking like they are having a living room, or bar conversation about information they are familiar with, and perhaps assume the watchers are equally familiar. However, it is like walking in a room after the punchline of a joke was told, and you have to figure out what the joke was about. That said, I was interested enough in the title to shell out $3, but what a waste of money. My summary- this is a totally low budget and poorly produced quack-u-mentary, with a high amount of infused conspriacy theory, but lacking any real proof or story line. What does it need to be a more credible documentary? It needs to be organized with an order and presentation of infomration that provides the viewer a cohesive and compelling story.