You can guess which reviews were written by Sibrel himself. That style is Sibrel's to a tee.

Correcting ignorance always requires more effort and verbage than spreading it. And it's always worth it.

I'm not against people seeing Sibrel's evidence. In fact, I'm scrambling to two different sources to obtain it and make it available for free. I'm against people being able to only see the evidence as Sibrel has presented it -- heavily edited and overshadowed by and juxtaposed with his ignorant and unfounded interpretations.

If Sibrel is so confident in the strength of his evidence, why doesn't he just let people see the raw footage and draw the "obvious" conclusion themselves? Why must he carefully, over the space of nearly an hour, lead his viewers to the desired conclusion, and then show only bits and pieces of the evidence?