That's what jumped out at me - he is talking about the Australasian tektites c. 780kya but also says at 34:18 "impacts across America" as an image of Crater Lake is on the screen. Just a few seconds later he brings a crater in Antarcica that's 780kya and says, starting at 34:50, we have major impacts that have left scaring across these continents precisely as described in his downloaded info while an image of Meteor Crater in AZ is on the screen.
Are you saying that Bruce didn't suggest those images? Even if he didn't suggest them, he approved them, right? Has he ever said "Alex, love the documentary but take out those two images because they shouldn't be there"? It seems unbelievable that he could watch the piece & not ask that those images get switched out. If he didn't say anything, that suggests to me that he either didn't know they contradicted what he was saying or is sloppy and doesn't care.
When I clicked on the video you had start at 29:20, I accidentally made it start about a few minutes earlier. In just those two extra minutes, I caught another set of glaringly dishonest claims by Bruce.
Here’s the BS claim
At 28:17, Bruce states that NASA investigated the origin of tektites and say they can only have been formed by an event in outer space. As he says this, images from a NASA paper (Technical Note D-1556, link below) appear with one section highlighted that says just what Bruce said on camera.
The problem is that (1) He uses the NASA paper to claim “we know tektites could only have formed in outer space” when that paper explicitly rejects the hypothesis, and (2) earlier in the video he cites a different paper which explicitly states the consensus opinion is that tektites were formed by a crater strike. The issue is not disagreeing with a consensus opinion, but saying the consensus opinion is X when the paper you cite for that opinion says X is false, and then citing another paper which explains that the consensus opinion is Y but pretending you didn't read that.
Problem #1 That NASA paper explicitly states that the origin theory for tektites that Bruce cites at 28:17 is WRONG, and does so in the same paragraph as the part he repeated. It’s on pgs 29-30 of the report & I’m attaching a screenshot of it. The red lines show the part Bruce repeated & the blue lines show where the author explains why it’s contradicted by evidence. It is very difficult to think of any other explanation for this other than blatant dishonesty, though it’s possible he read someone else cite this part of the paper & is just parroting what they said and never actually read it himself, which is also completely dishonest
Problem #2 Earlier in this video, Bruce cites a different, more recent, paper that clearly states “tektite glass is widely accepted to represent impact melt that was ejected during crater formation.” At 27:50, not even 30 seconds before he mentions the NASA paper, Bruce discusses discovering that there has been a 100+ year mystery over the origin of tektites while two different images from a 2018 article appear on the screen (The Enduring Mystery of Australasian Tektites By Aaron J. Cavosie, link below). The statement that tekties are widely accepted to have been created by a meteor impact is the first line of the second paragraph.
Bruce is dishonest. Like von Däniken and Graham Hancock, Bruce is not taken seriously by scholars because he is not scholarly. He intentionally twists the intent of the sources he cites and makes claims he cannot support. It's not the ideas, it's that they are not honest.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630003053/downloads/19630003053.pdf
http://elementsmagazine.org/2018/06/01/enduring-mystery-australasian-tektites/