Does the filmmaker have access to some sort of exclusive information that the rest of the world doesn't? Or, like most of these sorts of filmmakers, is he drawing conclusions beyond what can be conclusively reached with the availabile evidence?
"As the interviews progressed, the filmmakers posed additional questions that introduced details of possible militia activities. Mr. Jones’s responses evolved and, by the time he sat for the final interview, he professed firsthand knowledge of people and events that he had previously seemed to first learn about from the filmmakers."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/world/africa/hammarskjold...
Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say a documentary that claims western powers were intentionally spreading AIDS in South Africa (under the guise of a vaccination program) and does so on the basis of some extremely questionable witnesses might be stretching the evidence about some other things.