16 Feb What is the main point of the video; what are the producers trying to demonstrate or prove? If its more subtle than that, whats the central hypothesis that its attempting to evaluate?

here’s the video https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3kqhft
Your objective is to write a critical review of the content and mission of an assigned video devoted to pseudo-archaeological beliefs, or proposals, or mysteries. This paper should be 650-950 words (about 2-3 double-spaced pages) and submitted as a Word document (.doc or .docx, NOT a Google Doc). Try to answer all or most of these questions below in your video review. Please try to include at least 3 or 4 examples of your points that demonstrate that you watched the entire film from beginning to end, but dont worry about being excessively thorough. Theres more to say about the video than can be said within the maximum word count limit that were assigning, and we know that!
Try to maintain some skepticism (see pg. 40 in Ch. 2 of your textbook); specifically, keep in mind the points made in the Cheat Sheet?? from Feders book and Sagans “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.”
Please answer the questions below when you are writing your video review:
What is the main point of the video; what are the producers trying to demonstrate or prove? If its more subtle than that, whats the central hypothesis that its attempting to evaluate?
Does the overarching narrative of the video provide different sides of a controversy or mystery and try to evaluate them, or does it put forward a fairly one-sided view?
What kinds of archeological data (artifacts, features, ecofacts) would need to be found to help support claims that are made? (In other words, think about what concrete evidence you would need to find to indicate the past existence of giants or visitors from space).
Include a statement about whether or not you were swayed by any of the arguments or ideas that were presented in the film and explain why the authorities were convincing (or not); discuss what they actually say versus what is implied or added later by the show itself.
Other things to consider:
How are arguments in the video developed (e.g., hypotheses, data collection and evidence, logic, rhetoric, experts). Are claims supported clearly and professionally, with supporting data?
What are the professions of experts?? who are shown or discussed, and what credentials (books written, affiliations with organizations, etc.) are presented to indicate experts reliability? Do you find them credible?
Why did someone make this film? Is it intended as education, as entertainment, or as both? How can you tell?
Also, remember that some arguments that are presented might be valid, and some people in the show may be real experts (like the two professors in Search for Lost Giants). Be sure to mention that in your review.