Thursday, September 4, 2014

SMOKING GUN: Lawrence Krauss Admits Signing Release, Doing Interview for "The Principle"


I am particularly entertained by the laugh he draws from the crowd while talking about Kate Mulgrew's claim to have been "misled"---somehow-- despite having read the whole script for weeks, and then twice, into a microphone ;-)

Right at the beginning.

Much, much more to come........


  1. "Let's just forget about this and let it drift into the dustbin of history." Kind of like my movie, The Unbelievers...

  2. It is as if the interviewers are completely in a state of enthralment and thus unable to question the fact that Krauss makes no sense whatever in respect of the Principle documentary. What kind of journalists allow the interviewee to inanely fob off the matter that he is clearly embarrassed about and very anxious to cover up? Have they not the slightest journalistic interest in what it is that Krauss interviewed at length for, was paid for and is now very intent on people not knowing about? Have they no respect for themselves or their audience? If they had any interest in getting to the truth, they would at the very least name the film, and give a summary of its content, say when and where it can be seen, so that the audience can investigate it for themselves. They have no professional competence. Is the audience so easily led?

  3. Lynda:

    Your questions are so very apt that it really does raise very serious questions as to why the supposedly professional news media are not asking them.

  4. What a self refuting ass this man is!

  5. "I think that's fascinating, whenever you can take metaphysics and turn it into physics." —Lawrence Krauss (@14min).
    But metaphysics ≠ physics.

    Higgs was discovered in the past year? Gravitational waves were discovered, too? Really? News to me…

  6. Would love to see Robert debate this guy.

    Rick, I'd like to ask if the premiere date of the movie did not change and also when will be able to buy the movie online to watch it in digital form?


  7. Typical leftist behavior – smear the messenger. Also, he’s accusing you guys of using old interview footage without his knowledge and he’s comparing what supposedly happened to his friend Paul Davies (were he claims they cut and pasted his statement (at 6:27-6:52) “it’s not like, you know, rocks can talk” to say “rocks can talk”) to what he claims happened to him in The Principle.

    That’s a serious accusation - editing in mid-sentence in order to completely change its meaning, is not cool. I’m sure that if his claims were true, he would being suing.

    Rick, just like how all of the biological science data have to fit into the evolution narrative of “millions of years” I have found that the same propaganda exists with the geostationary satellite launch data. The data has to fit into the rotating/orbiting earth narrative.

    I have done some research into geostationary satellite launch data and have found some interesting things. I’m interested in these satellites because they are specifically linked to the earths “rotation”. These satellites and the folks who put them up are important because you would have to conclude that if anybody would know whether or not the earth rotates it would be these guys, right? It’s hard to go against what they say, after all, they put these satellites up and they say that the earth rotates – at least the data and animations (available to the public) say that.

    These satellites are different from all the other satellites in that they are parked in the sky. And that parking coordinate is a FIXED distance from the launch pad – THIS IS KEY. What this means is, all the geostationary satellite launch data and animations out there which claim that the West-to-East launched satellite will then have to “accelerate” at its transfer orbital apogee 22,236 miles out by firing its apogee “kick” motor accelerating it in the direction of travel for the supposed purposes of “catching-up” to its rotating parking spot, “syncing up” to the earths rotation, and “circularizing” its orbit, CANNOT BE TRUE!

    Here’s why. Let me introduce you to my AB LAW: An object traveling from point A (launch pad) to point B (Geo Parking spot) when A and B are a FIXED distance to one another, must slow down and stop when it gets to B, not accelerate into it. THIS IS A TESTABLE, OBSERVABLE, LOGICAL FACT! Whether the two points are on the ground, in the air, or in space, makes no difference – you MUST stop when you get to B. You cannot accelerate into B. B is not moving away from A!

    Try marking two points on the ground and walk from one to the other to see what I mean. The geostationary satellite launch data and animations out there and all over the web, which have been promoting the “rotating” earth “orbiting” earth narrative are in violation of this law.

    Rick, maybe you can include this subject in a future documentary. I would love to hear them explain their presented data in light of my AB (fixed distance) Law.

    P.S. I’m not saying that the geostationary satellites are not up there, what I’m saying is that they didn’t get there the way they tell us. I will soon have animations on my blog to help illustrate this. Please pass this on to Bob Sungenis.

    Thank You

    1. I will pass along, p-brane, and I thank you for thinking about this.

      Thanks for the email, I will send that to several folks along with this as well.

    2. Any claims advanced by anyone about malicious edits of anyone at any time in "The principle" are falsehoods advanced by those who have never seen the film, and hence are examples of nothing but pure malicious intent to defame the filmmakers.

      When the film opens, they are going to have some 'splainin to do.

      In fact, some of these folks ought to be pulling for a huge opening weekend for "The Principle", since it would be more difficult to prove damages ;-)

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. But "B" is not a fixed point in space, it's an orbit around the earth. This reference shows the process of moving from a parking orbit to a geostationary orbit:

    5. Antron Argaiv, thank you for commenting on my AB Law. I think though, you should re-read what I wrote. You said: “"B" is not a fixed point in space, it's an orbit around the earth”.

      Wrong on both accounts. First of all, B (the GEO parking spot) is fixed or stationary in two ways. It is a fixed distance from the earth, and, it is fixed in relation to the earths’ surface. It has an address both on the earth (the spot that it’s hovering over) and its parking spot in space. We can physically go to either address. And secondly, the geostationary parking spot is not going “around” the earth as you said, but is fixed to the earth - whether the earth is rotating or not.

      GPS satellites and the International Space Station are examples of orbiting satellites who’s “addresses” are not fixed, but moving – their B is moving away from their A. On the other hand, the geostationary satellites’ A to B relationship does not change; A is a fixed distance from B.
      So my AB Law is correct. All geostationary satellite launch data and animations out there are in violation of this Law. When going from A to B, when B is a fixed distance from A you must slow down and stop when you get to B not accelerate.

      You can think of it this way: your house is a fixed distance away from any geostationary satellite. If you had your own space craft and launched yourself up to a satellite, would you speed up when you got to it? Or would you have to slow down and stop? You would have to stop, of course. If you traveled to my house would you stomp the gas pedal when you got here? No. You would slow down and stop. My house is also a fixed distance from your house.

      The geostationary launch data and animations out there that claim the west-to-east launched rocket has to accelerate into its “rotating” parking coordinate (keep in mind, it is a fixed measurable distance from its launch pad) or accelerate at apogee in order to “circularize” its orbit – are wrong.

      That notion of accelerating to circularize the elliptical transfer orbit is fine for all other satellites where B is moving away from A, but not for the geostationary satellite; but that’s what they claim they do.

      So what’s my point in all of this? When they say they launch from west-to-east to “take advantage” of the “1000mph boost” they get from the “rotating” earth, it seems to me that they are obliged to say that because the current establishment science dictates they say that. The truth is, the same rotating earth that would produce a “1000mph boost” would also produce a 7000mph “boost” at geostationary altitude by virtue of just ascending straight up from the equator not needing to add any extra west to east speed at all. They don’t mention or account for that 7000mph. Yet, that is the reality of a rotating earth! Maybe they haven’t thought it through because it’s not reality. After all, everything is calculated based on a fixed earth so why bother calculating the effects of a gravitational rotating earth and its rotating atmosphere all inside the vacuum of space if you don’t have to.

      Also, evidently they didn’t think through this fact either - that A is a fixed distance from B. This fact renders the public geostationary launch scenario - (of “catching up to its parking spot” and “circularizing its orbit” by accelerating the space craft at apogee) - illogical.

      Rick, I make a short video on YouTube illustrating what I'm talking about.
      Here is the link:

      Thank you

    6. So, if B is a fixed spot in space, the Earth is not rotating, and the GEO satellite is hovering over a fixed spot on Earth, what keeps gravity from attracting it towards the Earth?

    7. B (GEO parking spot) is a fixed distance to A (the launch pad here on earth). Whether the earth is rotating or not, B is a fixed distance from A.

      As far as what keeps it from falling back to the earth, the space elevator people say that an object released above geostationary altitude will go up while an object released below it will go down - Wikipedia.

      So I'd say at 22,236 miles above the equator you reach an equilibrium - a balance point between the gravitational pull of the earth vs the gravitational pull of the rotating celestial canopy.

      Hi Rick, I put up another video on YouTube. This time I'm doing an analysis of the animated geostationary satellite launch by Jason Davis on Bill Nye's blog: The Planetary Society

      Check it out here:

      I have more analysis analysis and animations coming regarding this, I just haven't figured out how to put them up yet.

    8. OK, that makes sense - 22236 miles is the point where the gravity of the Earth is exactly balanced by the collective gravity of all the celestial objects above. But surely, the force of this collective gravity varies as the celestial canopy rotates? I mean, there are clumps of galaxies in some parts of the sky and none in others? Wouldn't that mean that the gravity when those more populated parts of the celestial canopy pass overhead is stronger? And we know that Earth's gravity varies from place to place.

      I'm having trouble understanding how the delicate balance required to keep all those satellites precisely in position is maintained.

    9. What I've read on the subject - there are perturbations requiring what are called "station keeping" maneuvers. They have little jets on the satellite for just that purpose. When it runs out of fuel, (about 10 years), it can no longer make those adjustments and the satellite is then taken out of service.

      If you're interested, go to to watch an animated geostationary satellite launch from Bill Nye's blog: The Planetary Society. Then watch my analysis of that video. I have a second part coming very soon on that same satellite launch that is very interesting, to say the least.

      You can also go to my YouTube page:

    10. Hi Rick, I just put up a video on YouTube
      I have about 10 animations. I analyze Bill Nye's geostationary satellite launch animation from his blog: The Planetary Society by Jason Davis. and I introduce my Rotation Law: Everything leaving a rotating earth and its rotating atmosphere will continue to rotate all the way up to GEO SAT altitude. Please check it out and please pass it along to Robert Sungenis.

      Thank You

  8. Rick, any chance of getting the answer to my questions above?


    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Ooops, sorry, I was looking for Lucas and saw Unknown- I answer now:

      1. The date has changed many times. This is not at all unusual even for a major studio film. For a film as anomalous and altogether unprecedented as "The Principle", the only surprising thing would have been if it didn't.

      2. Digital and DVD formats will be available once we have taken our theatrical release to its logical conclusion- probably early to mid 2015.

    3. Thanks Rick for the answers.

      About the first point, so would you mind giving us the currently set date for the premiere? Can you share the location of the premiere, or it's still a secret?


    4. We signed our contract with the distributor on Saturday.

      We will be making a final decision on the opening date (two are possible) this week.

      Both are in October.

      This time around, the announcement will be official, and in the form of a press release from our distributor.

      We open in Chicago.

  9. Great, thanks for the information Rick and good luck!!! I hope news will spread very quickly and many people will see it, because I want to see Robert debate "big bangers". We need those debates for people to see the problems in modern cosmology.


  10. Maybe the best thing would be for Krauss et al to get a writ or injunction banning the film. It then goes to court. The case expands to cover the entire scientific range of proofs for Geocentrism. The judge orders PhDs from both sides who are forced to give testimony a la Scopes, and our boys get to wipe the floor with the acentrists/heliocentrists. And the whole thing enters the official US court records for all time!

  11. There is no chance that Krauss or anyone else will be able to get an injunction.

    They know it.

  12. In the UK there used to be an anarchistic group of students called "A.P.E." - Association for the Protection of Evolution - who used to disrupt Young Earth Creationist meetings, sometimes violently, with the police even having to be called.

    Being that "The Principle", whilst not apparently strongly plugging Geocentrism's most radical premise, that of a stationary non-rotating Earth, but rather that of the Earth being demonstrably located at the physical center of the universe, which is not in accordance with the prevalent Einsteinian Relativity which holds that the universe may well have a center but that under NO circumstances can it be located, are precautions being taken that something like a brutish "C.P.M." (Copernican Protection Movement!) disrupt the film's opening day with placards and eggs, maybe even led by Plait and Krauss themselves?!

  13. The film is not plugging anything other than the most amazing detective story in history, and its next twist.

    It is going to be a huge disappointment to all of the propagandists.

    It will be a blessing to all human beings who wish to be respected in their sovereign intellects, and allowed to participate in a colloquium of some of the most interesting thinkers in the world on the question of our place and purpose in the cosmos.

    We have received many threats.

    We consider these threats to be a very important part of the story.

    After all, they always have been.

    There is *just something about this question*.

    "The Principle" is the first documentary treatment of this foundational Copernican Principle.

    It is the most important film in the world by far.

    Let the thoughts of many hearts be revealed.

  14. Thank's for your information ^___^
    this a nice post
    obat stroke ringan