A Tear in the Sky

The idea behind 'A Tear in the Sky' is a fantastic one: Get a group of scientists, experts and ex-military men to team up and observe a UFO hotspot, using state-of-the-art equipment. The result is ultimately disappointing because the group are given an incredibly short window of time (5 days) to produce their results. Ideally, the team should've been given months, not days to observe the skies and gather evidence. It was great to see the ex-navy guys Kevin Day and Gary Voorhis being given the chance to participate in a project like this. But the quality of the findings was incredibly poor. Grainy or distant footage and small objects that only appeared on screen for a split second. If the public is going to take the UFO/UAP phenomenon seriously, we have to come up with much better evidence than this.

Great movie, highly recommended. Several US Navy guys and a US Air Force guy join forces with a proven Producer (see Her earlier movies, Superhuman, E. T. Contact: They Are Here) to examine advanced aerial technologies.

I think this film is part of the mainstream drip drip disclosure: we don't know whether the users of these technologies (UAPs) might be neutral or good intentioned aliens, or bad aliens. This remains in vagueness, just like in the TV-reports.

The film does not even mention the possibility of unacknowledged, back-engineered secret space programs, which have been mentioned in several recent UFO-movies, although it does show some acknowledged advanced military technologies, as a possible explanation to the seemingly alien phenomena.

Mostly, the movie follows the new, politically correct speech of UAPs instead of UFOs, though the producer uses both expressions. They are not aerial and not phenonema: interdimensional and sentient beings.

I don't understand, why did they not have a look at high definition weather satellite data to check out that warmhole-like tear in the clouds?

Still, I do recommend for everyone to buy and watch this movie.

Worthless "treasure hunt" show like all those awful TV shows on the History Channel and Discover.

A bunch of scientists set up equipment on rooftops in Laguna Beach and Catalina and show us dots of light they film and track but they never tells what they are ... only what they think they might perhaps be.

William Shatner appears for no reason as he has nothing to do with the "scientific search." Nor does the annoying hostess.

Lots of graphs and charts and instruments ... but no substance. Why this was released as a "documentary" is anyone's guess.

...and when I was finished, there was almost nothing left. The woman has a REALLY annoying voice btw. This is one of those typical docs where they spend 90% of it setting up equipment and blabbing away to 'guests', in this case William Shatner of all people who'ill do any interview for a few bucks to help pay for his horse addiction. But there was just a lot of blabber and then they finally got something on a FLIR camera that showed up as a dot and then disappeared and that's pretty much the whole sha-bang right there. They think it was a UFO that was there one second and then vanished into another dimension or wormhole or whatever.

I found it very disappointing for the most part.

A History Channel-type of forced documentary that had too many holes in it to be taken seriously. From the technical aspect of how they were going to collect their " data" to how poorly the sighting were being communicated from the island to the shore house- meaning after the sighting was over!

The crew simply seemed like it was all filmed after the fact. I hate to say it was bad acting, but it felt somewhat embarrassing on quite a few occasions.

As far as the technical problems with the effort, please read the other fine reviews here. Sincerity of intention alone does not make for good research or a good doc.