Friday, January 10, 2014

"The Principle" movie

from a reader:
This looks pretty cool.  Got wind of it from Michael Voris, and then he did a show on it.  I thought his show was worth watching...and I'm excited for the release of the film.



  1. the big thing that keeps this from getting any push within Catholic circles (other than the neanderthal mockery) is that Robert Sungenis is involved and he has been so demonized by the approved Catholic media that i dont see this getting any play in the Catholic media

  2. Your Blogship,

    I must strongly disagree that the Voris show was any good. It was a fluff interview, in part because of Voris' lack of science background. The show did not provide any significant details into Delano/Sungenis' claims. It was little more than a promo for the movie.

    What struck me right off from the Trailer was the appeal to "significance" and being "unique". This is an appeal to pride and narcissism. Added to that is the appeal to conspiracies. Being created by God does not in any way imply that the Earth would need to be in the center of creation. Consider the humble life of Jesus, born in a stable in a backwater town of a backwater territory of the Empire. It would be shocking, considering salvation history, to think that God *would* put man in the center of creation.

    The Stonehenge graphics look impressive on first view, but on further reflection mean nothing at all. Stonehenge was created from an observed point of view. OF COURSE it's going to show stellar movement from a geocentric view. An appeal to these "ancients" also overlooks that these "ancients" worshiped demons.

    I suggest you check out David Palm's site he just launched this week He's been writing against these geocentrists for a number of years, primarily going after their claims of Magisterial and Fathers' support of geocentrism.

    1. So this movie is about geocentrism? I took from the trailer it was about cosmology. I did take a look at David's website but I'll have to dive in further.

    2. Your Blogship,

      Why did you think these two were putting this together? They're not science buffs, doing this to advance cosmology. You didn't pay very close attention to what they were saying in the Voris interview.

      I feel bad for Voris --but only a little as he clearly didn't do his research as he should have. Voris is going to get hammered worse for this by the Catholic Elite than his legitimate criticism of Barron.

  3. The movie is about the Copernican Principle. Geocentrism is relevant ot the topic, but it is not the topic. Casandra- Robert Sungenis has written a 3 volume work on geocentrism.

    1. You're being naive. The movie is being produced to support their geocentrism whether the movie comes right out and proposes it or not.

  4. Mark, thanks so much for mentioning the 3 volume work of Dr. Sungenis! And thank you for pointing out so correctly that the topic of the movie is not geocentrism, although geocentrism is relevant to the topic.

    I have the work of Dr. Sungenis which you mention and I have read it through and through. I can certainly vouch -- and vouch most strongly -- for the solid scholarship behind this work. It is extremely well documented for anyone to see.

    Having personally looked into the matter at length, I don't believe there is any other work in existence which more thoroughly addresses the question of the geocentric versus heliocentric debate as does this great 3 volume work, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right by Dr. Sungenis which can be seen at Sungenis' other site is also very well worth checking out: Finally, one other site which is of immense value (and which should be particularly appreciated by orthodox Catholics) is that of the renown Catholic apologist John Salza:

  5. i know they want to release a movie after this concerned specifically with geocentrism and its merits or demerits (to be picked apart), but like Mark said this movie is concerned specifically with the Copernican principle to which things like geocentrism and heliocentrism are linked for better or worse and neither should be disgarded purely on philosophical grounds which is what has happened

  6. Cassandra, dear, let me assure you that your visionary spirits do not seem to be tuning in the right channel tonight.

    I am the Producer and writer of "The Principle".

    It is the very first (so far as I can tell) documentary treatment of the Copernican Principle.

    It includes geocentrism as an indispensable part of that treatment, both as to its historical aspects, and as to the re-emergence of this cosmology in light of shocking new observations directly challenging the Copernican Principle.

    I fully appreciate that geocentrism is a controversial view.

    I welcome any logically coherent and scientifically up-to-date attempt to falsify it.

    I object to the mindless character assassination which seems to have infected a small but vocal minority of objectors, of which number you are exemplary.

    1. Well, if it isn't the "persecuted prophet" defense!
      I had not engaged in any character assassination above, but you readily stooped to it yourself. I merely pointed out that geocentrism was going to be part of the movie--which you have confirmed yourself. I do congratulate you on your consistency--you are just as pompous and condescending in the combox as you are in the interview!

      In regard to your character, it would be appropriate for you to address Mr. Keating's questions above: Just how *did* you present yourselves to these scientists when you were interviewing them? Did you fully divulge the nature of your project? Were you honest or deceitful? And be careful in your answer, because it can be confirmed with those scientists.

      It's also interesting that "Mark" above has his profile linked to, and conveniently "James" an anonymous blogger pops up to talk about Sungenis's books. Now you appear. Looks to me like the geocentrists are webcrawling to fill the comboxes with pro-geocentrist propaganda.

    2. Perhaps you could study the basics of cosmology to find out how illogical and unscientific your view is? Or if that is too much work for you, ask the handful of real scientists you've duped into appearing in your film? I'm just wondering: have they already been sending you complaint letters, or are they still blissfully unaware of how out-of-context you have been editing them? Mmh, I think I will ask them myself.

  7. Rick Delano was interviewed by Christine Niles last night on her show "Forward Boldly".
    I'm sure there will be many more interviews in the future which hopefully will help people like Cassandra:

    1. Just wonderful. He's suckered another Catholic host into an interview. He's clearly playing on the innate sympathy orthodox Catholics have over the Gallileo issue, and wishing that Gallileo could be proven wrong--and thus some kind of vindication of the Church. The problem with that is that Delano is falsely presenting geocentrism as having been (and still is) Church teaching. This is where David Palm's work on documenting that geocentrism has *never* been taught as a matter of Faith. (see Geocentrism and the Catholic Church).

      In Christine's interview, Delano reveals he's wanting to advance that there is a "Firmament" spinning around--just like the bible "says".

      The issue is NOT whether there are problems in Cosmology or whether the Standard Model, et al will hold. The issue is that Delano and Sungenis are arguing that "the Church has been right all along" and thus are dragging the Church into their little project. In the Voris interview, Delano makes mention of how the Gallileo trial was used to discredit the Church. While fair enough on that (though mostly due to misrepresentations of the trial), Delano and Sungenis, by dragging the Church back into this based on the false assertion that it has taught geocentrism, are both setting the Church up for another round of discrediting.

      If they want to dabble in Cosmology, fine. But leave the Church out of it.

    2. Thanks for the advice. I am researching the issues you mention, so I have already checked out the "geocentrism debunked" site. Keep in mind that most people you are probably pigeon-holing as "geocentrists" are interested in hearing from all sides.

  8. Dear Cassandara:

    To the contrary.

    The Church *was* right.

    Galileo *was* wrong.

    While this is not the subject of "The Principle", it is certainly a logically-defensible consequence of the scientific information presented in it, by leading cosmologists, who themselves might prefer to go through the looking glass into the multiverse instead.

    What is interesting is how profoundly allergic you seem to be to understanding that the Church *was* right.

    Galileo *was* wrong.

    Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?

  9. To understand the significance of THE PRINCIPLE one has to know the history of the Copernican Revolution and the details of the Galileo case in particular.

    From 1741 to 1835 churchmen did a U-turn and pretended to reverse the 1616 decree. All they did was drop the ban on books which in turn led Catholics to believe in heliocentrism

    In 1887 there came an experiment that could not find their orbital movement of the earth. To save heliocentrism the scientific world accepted Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity. Inherent in this theory was an agreement by science that absolute movement in space could not be found by science

    So, man being the prideful creature he is, was not about to let truth upset the status quo.

    1) The antichrists were not going to let the world know science never FALSIFIED the geocentrism of Scripture, and
    2) Churchmen (not THE CHURCH SHE HAD SPOKEN IN 1616 and 1633) were not going to let the flock know that the 1741-1835 U-turn they did was on a false premise.

    So the sham went on into the 20th century, the antichrists laughing at the CHURCH for defending geocentrism, and the 20th century while at the same time Catholics remained unwilling or unable to break through that mind-trap that is heliocentrism and defend the CHURCH's decrees of 1616 and 1633; that defined the TRUTH as being a geocentric world created that way by God.

    So, along came yet another proof for that 4.5 billion year heliocentric world, the cosmic microwave background. Wikipedia says:

    ' The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.'

    Wiki adds: 'Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation.'

    Now I recall reading one of Penzias and Wilson's books on the matter some years ago. In it they stated that the detected the earth moving through space. I wondered why this find never got a prize for the first 'proof' of the earth moving since Einstein said no way could science show which of the relative two (H & G) movements could be found by the empirical method.

    Anyway, now it turns out that the CMB shows the earth is the centre of the world. The significance of this of course can only be seen in the history of CHURCH and SCIENCE as depicted above.

    But guess what: the antichrists are scurring around trying to upend this find by accusing Sungenis and de Lano are having a religious geocentric motive in making this movie so who could take it seriously and the intellectual christians whose mindset is in heliocentric cement are joining in with many regurgitating all those 'proofs' and 'reasonings' that tell the human race what they see with their eyes is a big LIE, LIE, LIE.

    So, as usual the Newtonians will dominate; they will defend science's heliocentric 'proofs' in spite of the fact that even the dogs in the street now know that no 'proofs' really exist, while at the same time laughing at the PRINCIPLE's scientific proofs.

    Individually however, if any feel brave enough, you can break free from the illusionary drug that is the mindset of heliocentrism, then be objective and realise both H anf G are acts of faith. The CHURCH has decreed Geocentrism true and heliocentrism heresy.

  10. Debunking David Palm, Phase 1

  11. Ah, so let me get this right. Creationism is to Protestantism what Geocentrism is to Catholicism.

    Trumping up pseudo-science with "infallibility" of your position, kind of like the dinosaurs didn't exist because "that's what the Bible says."

    It looks like folks have debated this at the sites mentioned. We'll close comments now for the purpose of this post.