From his presentation alone, I definitely got blips on my BS detector watching that video presentation... the dude could have significantly condensed what felt like more than 50% of the video showing pictures and clips of naturally occurring phenomena and still have gotten the same point across. Also, his speech felt too fluffy and sugar-coated, and didn't help him in the credibility department.
A problem I have with the video of his experiment is when he takes the glass bowl (I think it's glass) and metal ball off the coil to demonstrate the localized space-time implosion... he would have done himself more justice if he removed the glass bowl and metal ball from the coil and then SET IT DOWN on a wooden table someplace with the camera being stationary. Him holding it in his hand, moving around the room with it, ALL while holding the camera as well, just makes the experiment look really amateurish and ghetto, not to mention leave traces of doubt.
I've always considered myself more a man of science than a man of faith, but science can only explain truths if mankind is principled enough in the pure practice of it. So his statement that some of the greatest minds have peer reviewed his work means less than it would have to me a few years ago... Climategate demonstrated to me that being peer reviewed means shit when someone starts talking about saving the world in the name of science, and has left a shadow of a doubt where I previously might have given the benefit of the doubt.
