Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Who Got Duped?

Now a month has gone by since the media told you, and the participants, all about "The Principle", a film none of them has ever seen.

The Producer has factually informed you (as well as the media, put onto this hysterical hoax by a bitter personal enemy of the Executive Producer who has, of course, never seen the film in the first place) that:

1. Every participant signed a valid and enforceable release.

2. The interviews are in the Producer's possession in both raw footage form and full transcripts

3. No selective editing can be even suggested, since those making the suggestion admit they have never seen the film

Now a month later, how many lawsuits have been filed?

The scientifically inclined will be completely unsurprised to notice that the number is zero.

Somebody got duped all right.

The media.

I will show you exactly how on May 28:


  1. The media was certainly a dupe, alright.-- and a mighty willing one at that! No surprise there! We can certainly expect more of the same.

  2. I would actually expect not a bit more of the same, since we will be showing the release forms and emails concerning all of the participants who have been, unfortunately, induced to believe the hoaxster on May 28.

    I would in fact expect a marked change after that date.

  3. There are a lot of reasonable people who can see an MSM scam when it happens.

    It's noteworthy to see how reactionary and emotional heckling erupts when the truth is told, because the same thing happens in an exorcism. The devils don't like to lose their grip on a person's soul and so they cry out as if in agony.

  4. You might have noticed a recent entry for The Principle on Wikipedia - I wonder who writes these things? I want to get in on this! :)

    1. Hugh: If you would like to be put in touch with the guys who are attempting to deal with this farce of a Wikipedia "entry", drop me a line here:

    2. Thanks Rick - I was just hyperbolating:) But it must be nice to be able to make your own dictionary with your own definitions.

  5. Suppose I were famous, and said once that my grandfather drank a half bottle of scotch and smoked a pack a day, and lived to be 101. OK, let's say it was a true statement. Then suppose someone used my statement (with lots of other data) in a book or documentary to put forth a theory that smoking and drinking will extend your life. I don't know why I would object to this, though I would naturally disagree with the theory. People could see the logic was absurd and would also see the limited nature of my statement. To use my story to prop the argument is what I think is called a false syllogism that anyone could see. (grandpa lived long, grandpa smoked and drank, ergo, etc.) So I wonder, why guys like Larry Krauss are afraid of being labelled a geocentrist, when he most likely said nothing at all about it. If he told the truth, he's on solid ground.

    1. All I can tell you is that Lawrence is hysterical about the film, and if you have read my earlier posts concerning his interview with us, you have one very plausible basis for understanding why this might be.

      If one states that a given observation would mean we were the center of the universe, then responds to an interviewer's question by affirming that this would be the implication, but that one believes the observations to be in error…….

      What would you do if you found out that the observations had been confirmed, and that the one and only documentary that had asked you about your comments on this question, happened to be the one about the Copernican Principle?

      Lawrence has said he will have nothing more to say about "The Principle".

      I doubt that very much.

    2. Yeah right.
      "And that's the last thing I'm going to say about it!.......Oh yeah, and another thing....."