Moment of Contact: Documentary Review and Commentary

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!****

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

My Recommendation: SKIP IT/SEE IT. A rather poorly constructed documentary that lacks coherence. Not worth paying to see but if you’re interested in the subject of UFOs, when the movie comes to streaming check it out for free at your leisure.

Ever since 2017, when the New York Times put their establishment stamp of approval on the UFO topic by running a story which contained previously unseen video of UAP’s (unidentified aerial phenomenon) obtained by Navy pilots, UFO stories have been taken more and more seriously by the mainstream media.

The giggles and eye-rolls which accompanied previous reporting on UFOs and the snarky comments about “little green men” have diminished as serious-faced military men and steely-eyed national security people have stepped forward to say, “hey, something really is happening here, and we better figure out what the hell it is!”.

I’m a UFO afficionado who deep down wants to believe…so much so that I do actually believe, but I’m also compulsively, if not pathologically, distrustful of the government, most particularly of military and intelligence agencies. So, I was excited by that NY Times article that started the recent surge of respectability for the subject of UFOs, but didn’t trust the two men who came to the fore as the faces of the UFO respectability program, Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon (of THE Mellon family).

Not surprisingly, as time has worn on that 2017 NY Times article has been exposed as being riddled with shocking inaccuracies and intentional misinformation, and Elizondo and Mellon have been shown to be basically the Butch and Sundance of UFO bullshitters.

To be clear, the establishment media, which is just the propaganda wing of the military and intelligence industrial complex, is not “all-in” on UFOs. Hell, just this past week a story ran in the Times that declared that those famous Navy videos were of “drones or trash” according to “unnamed sources”. That article and its sourcing should be a giant red-flag that a great battle is being waged behind the scenes over the UFO topic and the old guard is not going to go quietly into that good night.

The one thing we can be assured of is that Truth will not be on the agenda when the UFO topic is bandied about in the media or by government, military and intelligence toadies.

That most recent cynical Times article poo-pooing UFOs is a predecessor to a UFO/UAP report that is supposed to hit the public this coming week. The report has been getting a lot of hype in the UFO enthusiast community, with breathless yet familiar claims that “disclosure” of alien life and UFO visitation would be coming in the near future, but the “drones and trash” Times article has poured cold water on that utopian notion.

One man who was vociferously declaring that the upcoming UFO/UAP report was going to be very big news was documentarian James Fox.

Fox captured the recent ‘taken-more-seriously’ UFO zeitgeist in his worthwhile 2020 documentary The Phenomenon, which covered the various UAPs that befuddled Navy pilots in the Atlantic and Pacific and were captured on Navy cameras and instruments.

Other filmmakers have tried to follow in Fox’s footsteps. For example, J.J. Abrams produced a four-part docu-series for Showtime in 2021, lethargically titled UFO, but that was a rather forgettable piece of work.

Another Fox UFO documentary is 2009’s I Know What I Saw, which is well-made but not nearly as good as his very first foray into the subject which was his 2002 doc Out of the Blue.

Out of the Blue is the Citizen Kane of UFO documentaries. It’s a fantastically well-made movie and a truly remarkable piece of work that, despite often being somewhat difficult to find, is a must-see for anyone with even a passing interest on the subject.

The bottom line is that Fox is now, and has been for quite some time, the preeminent UFO documentarian and has made a name for himself being the UFO doc guy.

In recent days Fox has once again been in the spotlight. Hell, nowadays you can’t turn around without stumbling across Fox either on social media or TV because he’s out promoting his new documentary, Moment of Contact, which chronicles an alleged 1996 UFO crash in Varginha, Brazil, which included the supposed retrieval of one or two alien beings.

Moment of Contact was released on October 18th and is currently available via Video on Demand on Amazon and Apple, with the price to purchase (it’s not available to rent) being $19.99.

As someone with a longtime interest in UFOs, who is well-read and well-versed on the subject and who is also a fan of Fox’s earlier work, I was excited to see Moment of Contact, but was less-than-enthused to pay $20 for the privilege, so I waited until I got a copy for free from a fellow UFO researcher.

After having finally watched the documentary, all I can say is that I’m glad I didn’t pay for it.

Moment of Contact is easily Fox’s weakest effort in terms of UFO documentaries.

The story of the Varginha UFO/Aliens is as compelling as it gets, as it covers a UFO crash, aliens and alien retrieval, Brazilian and US military intervention and strong-arm cover-up, as well as human death, yet Fox somehow manages to make a documentary about it that’s as dull as dishwater.

Moment of Contact struggles to keep audience attention because it’s simply much too scattered in its focus, incoherent in its narrative and underwhelming in its execution.

The film’s failures are many. For example, it fails to piece together a coherent timeline of events in Varginha back in 1996 on the night of the crash and the days following. Minor mis-steps, such as constantly changing perspective of an overhead map meant to show the space where portions of the incident occurred, highlight the lack of precision and attention to detail that the subject requires. This inability to give the viewer an adequate understanding of the time and space where events took place, makes for a confusing and frustrating viewing experience.

Another minor example is that the majority of people in the film are Brazilians who speak Portuguese. Fox has an interpreter with him and she repeatedly mis-interprets what people are saying to him, which is evident by reading the sub-titles and contrasting that with what she says to Fox. The mis-interpretations are minor, but once again they speak to Fox’s failure to attend to detail and be precise. How can we trust what the film is claiming if we can’t trust what it is literally being spoken on film?

Fox compiles numerous eyewitnesses and they tell compelling stories, but to the film’s detriment, he’s never able to gather any substantial evidence to back up their remarkable claims.

For instance, Fox never uncovers paperwork proving U.S. Air Force flights into the area which would at least make the claim of US military and intelligence agency involvement substantial. Hospital records of the man who allegedly died after coming into contact with an alien, or even his military records, would also increase credibility, but Fox fails to provide them.

I understand these are difficult things to acquire and that subterfuge is the name of the game for officials concerning this subject, but with no electronic data like radar, or official documents – like flight, military or hospital records, then we are left with just witness accounts from regular people and rampant speculation.

At one point Fox brings the mayor of Varginha in and the mayor tells him he thinks the story is true. This mayor has no connection to the case whatsoever, and considering the city of Varginha embraces the UFO story and may be angling to use it as a tourist attraction, his beliefs have less-than-zero credibility.

The rest of the film feels as half-hearted and superficial as that visit from the mayor of Varginha.

Fox has recently been on social media claiming that there are two witnesses who say there is video evidence of the alien captured in Varginha. He claims these people have seen the video and he is working hard to get it, and once he does, he will share it with the audience.

If in fact Fox uncovers video of an alien, then it’s a true game-changer, but until then, Moment of Contact is a rather vapid documentary into the fascinating story of the Varginha incident that does a disservice to the very complex subject of UFOs.

To be clear, I actually believe the story of the witnesses to the Varginha UFO, I just think Moment of Contact fails to feature them together in a coherent and insightful way, and thus ends up not bringing anything of note to the discussion.

If you’re a UFO enthusiast, Moment of Contact will be frustratingly rudimentary and not worth a $20 price tag. If you’re someone new to the subject, the story might be eye-opening, maybe even too eye-opening to be believable. Either way, what happened in Varginha deserved a much better documentary than James Fox’s rather flaccid Moment of Contact.

©2022

John Oliver - Shameless Establishment Shill

FOR THE PREVIOUS JOHN OLIVER ARTICLES CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW

1. COURT JESTER AS PROPAGANDA TOOL - 2. THE DRUMPF AFFAIR AND LITTLE BILL MAHER'S POWER FETISH - 3. WAXING BRAZILIAN AND WANING CREDIBILITY -4. OUT TRUMPING TRUMP ON THE GREAT WALL OF TRUMP - 5. THINGS SAID AND UNSAID.

Estimated Reading Time : 5 minutes 02 seconds

This Sunday, February 12, 2017, season 4 of John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight premieres. If the first three seasons are any indication, viewers can expect no deviation from the official party line by the establishment’s favorite comedy accomplice.

John Oliver is a charlatan who appears to be a rebellious liberal comedian speaking truth to power, but is really a shameless shill for the ruling class in the U.S. Oliver specializes in telling his liberal audience and those in the establishment exactly what they want to hear. He never genuinely challenges or questions the U.S. power structure, making him an agent of the status quo, which is why the media love him so dearly.

In order to maintain most favored status among liberals, Oliver assails universally loathed entities like FIFA, the NCAA, tobacco or televangelists. Or he’ll investigate a wonky subject like infrastructure, voter ID laws or reforming the bail system. While Oliver gets quite a lot of attention for these stories, they only generate heat, not light. Nothing changes as a result, not even popular opinion since Oliver is only preaching to the converted in the liberal echo chamber.

When it comes to potentially controversial topics, like the rare times he looks at the U.S. political, military and media establishment, John Oliver gives his sycophant fans the soft sell. In the 89 Episodes of Last Week Tonight that have aired, they have shown 250 segments. In those segments, Oliver has scrutinized issues pertaining to the U.S. military and foreign policy just 11 times, that’s 4.4%. In contrast, the show has dedicated 14 or 5.6 % of their segments to Russia, Putin and Russia’s foreign policy. And those numbers do not include the innumerable one-liners at Russia’s expense scattered throughout various other segments, as Putin is Oliver’s favorite comedy whipping boy.

VIDEO LINK

Even when Oliver looks into issues like drones, torture, Guantanamo Bay or NSA spying, he does so with the gentlest of tones and the kindest of language. For example, in regards to drones he called U.S. strikes, which killed civilians, “a little disturbing”. At end of the segment he concluded that now “might be the time to think about drones”. So his scathing assessment of the drone program was that it might now rise to the level of “thinking about”? And I guess “might” was the operative word in his statement since Oliver has never returned to the topic.

Contrast this delicate approach to the U.S. with his scorched earth campaign against Putin, where Oliver leads a cacophony of establishment media voices preaching a Russian hysteria. Oliver has assured his audience that the “brutal Russian dictator” shot down MH17, invaded Ukraine, committed war crimes in Syria, murdered Boris Nemtsov and would starve and freeze the population of Crimea once winter arrived. Oliver’s stance on Russia is just as vacuous, assumption-filled and fact-free as the rest of the mainstream media. A braver comedian would challenge the current prevailing presumptions, but courage is obviously not John Oliver’s strong suit.

Even when Oliver is mildly critical of the U.S., like he was in his torture and Guantanamo Bay pieces, he deflects those American failures by pointing to other nations that he feels are much, much worse, like Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. He also avoids using moral and ethical frameworks to argue against alleged U.S. failings, instead favoring arguments about “image”.

VIDEO LINK

Oliver’s main thrust on torture was that it causes “serious harm to America’s image”. He had an entire segment titled “The CIA’s Public Image” which dealt with how the CIA handles its social media. Of all the things to talk about regarding the CIA, their social media prowess seems to be the most frivolous, which is probably why Oliver chose it. In Oliver’s interview with NSA chief Keith Alexander, an important part of the conversation was on the NSA’s image and how to change it for the better, not on its Orwellian surveillance programs.  When it comes to questioning the U.S. establishment, Oliver never dare wander into the heart of the matter, only stay on the surface and stick to appearances.

VIDEO LINK

The discussion with Keith Alexander was also enlightening when contrasted with Oliver’s interview with Edward Snowden. Watching the Alexander and Snowden interviews side by side, it is easy to see where Oliver’s loyalties lie. Oliver uses the softest and most playful tone with Alexander, where he is extremely aggressive and nasty with Snowden.

The Snowden interview also reveals Oliver’s tactic of obfuscating uncomfortable issues. Oliver spends the first half of his Snowden segment making the story about how frightened he is to be in Russia. He is fearful because Snowden is late, the old KGB building is across the street and Russians are no doubt listening to his every word. You could come away from these bits thinking it is Russia that’s been eavesdropping on the world and not the U.S. But that was Oliver’s point with the Snowden interview and many other segments, to distract from U.S. crimes by imagining foreign ones.

The cherry on top of the Snowden episode was when John Oliver blamed Edward Snowden for the “major f***- up” of the New York Times publishing information that allegedly named a secret agent and a target.  In John Oliver’s world, the New York Times is sacrosanct and above blame, but that scoundrel Snowden makes for a convenient scapegoat.

VIDEO LINK

Lies of omission are littered throughout Last Week Tonight episodes as well. When Oliver did a segment on Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia, he made the story about how rude the Saudi’s were to the president but gave no context at all. According to Oliver, the Saudi’s just randomly decided to hate Obama. Of course, the actual context is pretty important, Obama went to Saudi Arabia to calm the royal family over the 9-11 lawsuits and the congressional bills opening up the Saudi’s to liabilities for the attacks. Why Oliver would ignore this is beyond me.

When Oliver doesn’t ignore context is also revealing. In two segments on Ramzan Kadyrov, the Sunni strongman in Chechnya who had lost his cat, Oliver went to great lengths to give Kadyrov’s ties to Putin. He also spoke of Kadyrov’s Wikipedia page, which has a section about his human rights abuses, and spoke of it as if it were some sort of smoking gun. This is curious, as there was no mention of human rights abuses when another group of despotic Sunni Muslims, the Saudi’s, were the topic. And the Saudi’s don’t just have a section on their Wikipedia page about human rights abuses, they have a whole page dedicated to their human rights abuses! But Kadyrov is an enemy of the U.S. establishment and the Saudi’s are protected by it, so Oliver acted accordingly.

VIDEO LINK

Oliver only uses context when it supports the official narrative, not when it undermines it. A case in point was his coverage of the protests in Brazil against the left-wing Workers Party government. Oliver made that story about left wing corruption in Brazil, and nothing more. A closer examination of those protests reveals that a major factor was class and race, with wealthy Whites protesting against the government and poor Black/Brown people protesting for it. Race and class would normally be things that someone like John Oliver, and his liberal audience, would focus on, he certainly would in relation to the Tea Party or Trump supporters here in the U.S. But in South America, the official U.S. narrative is left-wing, populist governments are “no bueno”, and so  Oliver, whether it be in regards to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil or Rafael Correa in Ecuador, propagates that position.

VIDEO LINK

In contrast to his coverage of Brazil, watch this segment on turmoil in another left-wing South American country, Venezuela. In it, Oliver opens the segment with a news story that clearly defines the context of the protests, with the poor and working class on one side, and the military and police on the government side. Why clarify the struggle in Venezuela so distinctly but keep the Brazil situation murky at best? Because context in the Venezuela story supports the establishment media narrative that Oliver wants to sell, and it undermines it in the Brazil story.

And finally, the most remarkable proof of Oliver being an establishment shill occurred on the season three finale. Oliver actually pleaded with his audience to subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post in order to counter Trump and fake news. This was the first time John Oliver ever made me laugh out loud, as buying the Times and Post as an antidote to fake news is like treating obesity with a diet of pizza and ice cream.

It is too bad that Oliver’s insipidly predictable comedy and insidious support for all things establishment are so beloved by his minions. They obviously don’t know it yet, but John Oliver isn’t laughing with them, he’s laughing at them, all the way to the bank.

Previously published on Saturday February 11, 2017 at RT.

©2017