Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Watch Calling All Earthlings

Calling All Earthlings is a movie starring Daniel Boone, Eric Burdon, and Valerie Gill. A 1950's Howard Hughes employee-confidante, George Van Tassel, uses alien guidance and Nikola Tesla's ideas to build a time machine -- The...

Genres
History, Sci-Fi, Documentary
Director
Jonathan Berman
Starring
Desiree Hurtak, Valerie Gill, Daniel Boone, Eric Burdon

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres History, Sci-Fi, Documentary
Director Jonathan Berman
Stars Desiree Hurtak, Valerie Gill, Daniel Boone, Eric Burdon
Country USA
Also Known As People of Earth
Runtime 1 h 14 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description A 1950's Howard Hughes employee-confidante, George Van Tassel, uses alien guidance and Nikola Tesla's ideas to build a time machine -- The Integratron. Is he deluded, or could it actually work? As waves of devotees join him in the California desert, the FBI gets involved fearing insurrection and possibly more. Nearing completion, Van Tassel's tale and the Integratron meet an unexpected end: the "workings" of the dome finally emerge. The unusual story is told by historians, astronomers and current residents of Joshua Tree, including the stewards of the Integratron, the Karl Sisters, and a galaxy of believers and skeptics alike.

Top reviews

Friday, 28 Aug 2020 17:57

I thought this film was actually quite good. I'm a huge fan of film making and my friends love this film too. I'm actually surprised that it was made by a company called Lionsgate as I have read they are known for making their audience feel uneasy with it's harsh treatment of homosexuality. However I've never had to endure such harsh treatment in my life. I've always believed that the film industry is open and accepting of different opinions and ideas. This film seemed to have a few points that were true and I think that most people should see it. Also I like how this film seems to be real and wasn't made up by actors. I believe this movie was the one that brought the gay rights movement to the forefront of the world. The production values were really good. I like how I felt like I was a part of the production. It was very exciting and I really felt like I was on an adventure with the crew. I really liked how the crew didn't overact or over dramatize anything. I think this film was more focused on it's message than it was about the production. It just felt like I was watching a documentary. This film was more like a documentary than a film. I liked the cast. I felt like it was a good mix of famous faces and unknown faces. I loved them all. I also really liked the story and what they were trying to accomplish. It was very well thought out. This was a really nice documentary. I think that it should have been nominated for an award. I also liked how it gave a message that you can be an actor or a scientist and still love to be a part of the gay community. I also liked how this film showed how to be more accepting and accepting of everyone. This film was definitely worth watching. If you are looking for a good documentary, I recommend this one.
Wednesday, 05 Aug 2020 17:19

In 1995, there was a small group of scientists that were attempting to create the perfect organism capable of growing in a field of almost sterile wheat. They had chosen wheat that had been grown on a number of farms to establish a study group. They successfully generated yeast and proceeded to study its physical characteristics, even reaching the ultimate goal of creating a human baby within the five days necessary for that, but that's only a small part of what happened during that year. They went to great lengths to study the environment and the soil, and by the end of the year they had created a new organism which had the ability to grow without fertilizer and self-sufficiently. They believed this creature would change the world, but by the next year all were gone. Today, most people are familiar with the story. The effect of human overpopulation, the pollution of our air and water, the spread of disease and hunger, and the quest for perpetual survival are all here to stay. That's why I'm so surprised at the 100th anniversary of the study. Yes, I understand the message behind the documentary was to warn us of the future of the human race, but it seems so small compared to today's problems. No matter how great the world may become, there will always be a few humans willing to destroy it for selfish ends. The death of the new generation seems to be what drives the production of the documentary. No longer is it the threat of a new world order that drives the production of this film. We're all that we are, and it's time to stop accepting our station as the source of our problems. We're all headed for the same pit. If they'd just developed a way to reach that pit, they would have had the potential to destroy our species, but no, they couldn't help themselves. A young girl sees what it means to be abandoned, and this is only one example of many other tragedies that occur throughout the film. What are we, really, to do? Are we to take the chance that humans may be replaced by mutants? That the rats will be left in the sewers for years and years? Well, there's a question you can ask. It's just like many of the problems the human race is facing today. At least for the last half of the twentieth century, the answer was always "Yes" to these questions. Why didn't we just stop the self-destruction? It was our present mortality that led us to the moral choices we now face. They didn't need another report like this to tell them. That's what I feel. There are many quotes in this documentary that have made me chuckle at times. One is from a young man with green eyes who says "Once you're dead, you're dead." Wow, I didn't expect that. I guess his point is that it's best to be dead when you're young. It was only after he had become old and lost his own beauty that he realized he wasn't beautiful after all. At least
Wednesday, 08 Jul 2020 07:45

It's actually a bit strange to me, that this movie can be enjoyed as a documentary, but somehow seems the least effective to me. Having lived in the USA for a year, and knowing most Americans like a bunch of actors, and lecturing about how great their country is and how free and wonderful it is. I mean, it's quite hard to get a feel for what these men are like, what they are like as people. I'm not sure they would be very likable to people outside of the USA. I also don't know if they would even be very charismatic or sympathetic to those of us who live here, and those of us who have been there. It's hard to know if they are just a bunch of guys who are about to kill themselves by drinking too much beer, or if they actually want to die as people, or just kill themselves by killing others, but their films don't give us any insight into any of those questions. It's like, they are all just taking a snapshot of a really, really horrible, horrible, horrible time, and putting it on film to make a little film about. I don't think I've ever heard of any of the men interviewed. I've never been to the US or any part of America, and if they were on camera, I really couldn't tell. The commentary is actually pretty good. But really, I don't know if any of the men are all that interesting or if they are just a bunch of drunk, sexist guys who are just people who hate women and want to kill women, and would like to kill a bunch of them. It's hard to know, because this film is just one man talking about his life, for his life, and it is not very interesting. I think the thing that strikes me most about this film is the constant use of the F-word. I mean, I realize that this is all true. I realize that it's a documentary, and that a bunch of drunken men can be offensive. But I don't think it was necessary to have this F-word used all the time, to not only make a point about how we really need to be put in line with our values, but also to make a point about how we get offended by it. It does seem to me that it was unnecessary, and possibly even unnecessary for them to use that particular word. I also thought that they were going overboard with this use of the F-word, because I couldn't really tell if it was really important to them, or was just being used as a way to express how much they dislike women. Anyway, this film does offer some interesting insights into the lives of the men interviewed, and also about how Americans actually feel about our country, but I just think it's just not that interesting. Maybe they could have been more interesting if they had made a documentary about the Vietnam War, or if they had interviewed Vietnam vets. But this film is so focused on men talking about their lives, that
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2020 23:43

Drilling in the Arctic, USGS researchers show how this bedrock is being depleted for coal mining, affecting the climate and forcing the closure of some mines. Produced by the Center for International Forestry Research at Colorado State University, Arctic Degradation: A Changing Arctic (2017) is a five-part documentary. The first, A Changing Arctic, is about the declining permafrost. The second, Hard Facts: We're on the Brink of Extinction, details the latest scientific reports. The third, Looking at Coal's Impact on the Arctic, discusses the problem of coal mining. The fourth, Finding My Way to Natural Gas: Leaving the U.S.S.R., discusses the projected migration of the Russian energy industry from the U.S. to the Middle East and Canada. The fifth, Pathway to a Natural Gas Future: How it Helps the Global Economy, details the major global economic implications of the development of new natural gas reserves. The fourth part is the most surprising and informative. It focuses on the effects of coal mining on the climate, and specifically, the effects of increasing Arctic sea ice, and thus, decreasing global sea ice extent. The Arctic is an ocean area that has become extremely arid because of warming temperatures, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, and changes in precipitation patterns. The majority of the warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Over the past several decades, Arctic sea ice extent has been decreasing. The sixth, Turning the Tide: How to Break the Stereotype, focuses on the economic impacts of climate change. These factors, combined with increased sea ice extent, have led to rising sea levels, and a devastating impact on the people and infrastructure in the United States. In the final, Fueling the Climate: The Economic Impact of Climate Change, the film exposes the economic impact of fossil fuel emissions. The bottom line is that America's economic leadership depends on energy, including fossil fuels. Cutting back on these energy sources will help to reduce pollution and global warming. However, cutting back on these sources will not be as cost effective as if we continue to burn fossil fuels. A significant decline in U.S. energy production will raise U.S. oil prices and force Americans to pay for the energy that is no longer being produced. This will also be an enormous economic burden. Given the economic costs, we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. However, this cannot be done by cutting back on our energy production. As a result, the United States will continue to depend on energy imports and not producing any more. This is a solution that will only benefit the global economy. However, the effects of these reductions will be felt by U.S. consumers, and it is hard to imagine that Americans will ever pay for our energy imports. Oil imports are used in a significant amount of energy products, including those that are more important than the energy used in the production of these products. The global economy has responded to increased energy supply by increasing global demand, and the U
Saturday, 30 May 2020 20:19

I found the documentary and the after-effects to be a welcome relief from the world-wide insanity of the events of 9/11. It was interesting to see a variety of witnesses of the attack, some of whom were living near or close to the sites of the attacks, but some of whom were living in the same buildings as the World Trade Center. Despite the fact that many of the people who were at the WTC when it was attacked are now dead or "missing" from the pictures we have, I was more than pleased with this film. It was both honest and balanced. Some people were not really happy about the film, and not sure what to make of it. I personally thought that it was more about people, and how different and often awful people can be in different situations. In one case, I think I was the only one at the World Trade Center who was actually worried about what was going on around me. In fact, I was more concerned about my own safety than about the people in my immediate vicinity. But other people were much more concerned about the status of those near and dear to them. I think that this film does a very good job of showing the range of feelings that people in the same situation can have about others. I thought that some of the stories were too fantastical, and that the public was shown very little, if any, evidence of a professional "take down" team. And I thought that the weather data could have been shown to more clearly support claims of a controlled demolition. All in all, I thought that this film did a good job of representing the feelings of the people who were there and I was happy to see that the few who died in the attacks of 9/11 were shown much more sympathy than I thought they would be. But this film does not seem to be the most impartial documentary on the subject of the attacks of 9/11.
Tuesday, 28 Apr 2020 11:21

I saw this documentary at the National Association of School Administrators' (NASA) Annual meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, where I attended a screening of it. The National Association of School Administrators is the nation's largest school management organization and is dedicated to increasing educational quality and preparing teachers for effective teaching and learning in the classroom. The NASA represents more than 3,600 schools and employs more than 6,000 educators. It's members are more than just state governments and school districts; they also represent more than 1,000 colleges and universities. In recent years, NASA has undertaken a number of initiatives that aim to ensure greater accountability for the quality of instruction at every level of the education system and to increase the number of teachers who are prepared to teach, regardless of their professional experience. The film follows NASA National Director Gary Vitti as he interviews some of the most respected and influential school officials, teachers and school administrators in the United States, and explores the political, educational and practical issues that might influence the outcomes of their efforts. "Who Do You Trust?" is a very compelling and inspiring documentary. It takes a relatively simple question and addresses it with multiple opinions and conclusions. The people interviewed here are all educators, some educators and some not. Each person gives their opinion and, in some cases, their personal experiences. While the main idea is to get across the various perspectives, the documentary also helps to clarify the issues involved. For example, when it comes to the matter of the creation of curricula, each person has a different view. One person believes that we should learn at least two aspects of teaching, including both theory and application. Another person says that we should do as little as possible, because teaching is really about educating. A third person believes that school districts should do as little as possible, because teaching is really about empowering the teachers. Yet another person says that teaching is really about encouraging children to think and to ask questions. They all agree that more education, not less, is the answer. The documentary also highlights some of the controversies and concerns that have arisen regarding standardized tests. In particular, the documentary highlights a debate that is currently taking place in some districts that involves evaluating the effectiveness of testing and whether this is the best way to measure student achievement. The NASA does not support the use of a standardized test in this manner. The NASA believes that when students are given a variety of assessments at different stages of their learning, then they are more likely to be prepared for future tests. In this regard, the organization has introduced new and innovative tests that focus on student achievement at different levels of achievement, such as student and teacher achievement, student and family achievement and student achievement at both the end of the school year and at the end of the school year. The NASA believes that these assessments are the best way to measure the effectiveness of education programs and to develop programs that increase student achievement. In the past, the NASA has used the results of standardized tests to evaluate student achievement. For example,


Write a review