Scandal Continued... why Karl Keating must attack the Principle

(edit) Before you read this ask yourself if you are able to see a persons personality and their proposed theories as mutually exclusive.  Will you allow the chips to fall where they may?  Or are you unable to allow discussion on things that are not confirmed but remain theories.  Let the chips fall where they may on Geocentrism, read Palm, read Sungenis, let the evidence speak either way... be joyful of HIS amazing creation!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw this by Mark Shea's house.  Its Karl Keating's repose to last nights "Mic'd Up" episode related to all the hoopla surrounding the upcoming documentary "The Principle".  There are so many problems with the attack on the show and on the people involved... I just had to take a charitable shot at clearing things up:

My comments in RED

Karl Keating Does all the Heavy Lifting So I Don’t Have To

May 29, 2014 By Mark Shea 7 Comments

Evidently, CMTV has done another puff piece on “The Principle” and Karl Keating, Dave Palm and Yr. Obdt. Svt are fingered as the sinister agents of the Church of Nice out to destroy the Work of God Almighty. Karl responds:

Does it not even bother Mr. Shea for a second that when mocking people that are putting together something they think is important and worthy of propagation that he not exaggerate what they claim.  In other words, Mark, they didn’t claim it was God’s work to make this, but a worthy pursuit.  Mockery is not from above.  Charity Mr. Shea on things not of the faith?

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOT MUCH

For the second time, Bob Sungenis and Rick DeLano appeared on Michael Voris’s “Mic’d Up” program to talk about their film “The Principle.”

DeLano, at his blog, had done his best to hype this evening’s show, but in …his promo he pretty much said what ended up being said on “Mic’d Up”: that the film’s producers had in their possession signed releases from those whose interviews are in the film and that the film has been taken on by a distributor.

I don’t remember anyone claiming that those interviewed, such as Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku, hadn’t signed releases, so that always was a non-issue. Krauss claimed a lack of memory of having been filmed, but a clip shown by DeLano on “Mic’d Up” made it clear that Krauss was aware that he was on camera.

What wasn’t made clear tonight–and apparently it wasn’t made clear to Krauss or Kaku prior to the interviews–was the undergirding argument of “The Principle,” that geocentrism is true.

Perhaps Mr. Keating missed the whole part of the release that stated that the documentary would be used as part of film that would explore controversial aspects of cosmology.  Then consider the questions that are asked of them.  Which neither you Mr. Keating or David Palm or Mr. Shea have seen but you assume from your mountain top they are taken out of context.  When did you trust Krause again?  Or is it really just the grudge against Sungenis?  We both know.

The real issue never was whether those interviewed had signed releases but whether they had been told what the film was intended to argue toward. Nothing in tonight’s program would lead one to believe that Sungenis and DeLano had been up front with the interviewees.

Did they in the film misrepresent the views of Mr. Krause or the others?  Im confused.  Again they were told the topic and given questions that they answered.  If the PHD’s couldn’t reason to the topic by the questions given, well…. They might work for… never mind.

(The signed releases were shown on screen, to prove the interviewees had been paid for their time. The amounts paid were redacted except in one case, where the release showed that the interviewee was paid $1,500.)

As in the earlier edition of “Mic’d Up,” Bob Sungenis said very little. Most of the words came from DeLano, secondly from Voris.

Probably because if Mr. Sungenis says anything you will say every last word and even the word “the” is anti-Semitic and related to holocaust denial syndrome.  Mr. DeLano and Sungenis decided, obviously not to make it about Bob (personality wise) which I think is smart. 

The two of them posited the existence of a concerted effort by what Voris has dubbed “the Church of Nice” to undercut the film. Three people were named as ringleaders: Mark Shea, David Palm, and me. My name was mentioned just once in passing;* more or less the same for David Palm’s. But Mark Shea got considerable attention.

And justly so because he has a big mouth and appointed himself the defender of all things Catholic in the blogosphere.

DeLano showed on screen a tweet that Shea had made on Krauss’s Twitter feed in which Shea asked Krauss whether he knew that “The Principle” actually was made by people backing geocentrism.

This is what amazes me, whether or not the movie was made by geocentrists does not make that big of a difference to me because the focus is on the Copernican Priniciple and whether or not it is correct by looking into the most recent evidence on the topic and asking the experts in such fields their take on the matter.

In DeLano’s opinion, it was this query from Shea that made Krauss–and later the film’s narrator Kate Mulgrew–go public against the film.

Considerable time was spent on promoting the idea that Shea, Palm, and I have been trying to undercut the film by claiming it promotes anti-Semitism. This was an argument Voris repeatedly made, but none of us ever alleged anything of the kind about the film. We never have said or even implied that there is a hint of anti-Semitism in the film. We presume there isn’t.

What we have said–repeatedly, over many years–is that Bob Sungenis wrote many dozens of articles, at his website and elsewhere, against Jews, accusing them of being responsible for manifold political, social, and cultural evils. For instance, he argued that Jews were responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers.

But the question is what does Bob’s views on Jewish polical issues have to do with the film?  Why does it need to be brought up?  Its ultimate and final goal is to discredit the film by discrediting the maker of it.  Come on Karl, be honest you cant stand Bob.  He cant stand you, but really?  Who cares about your petty games.  Let the movie stand or fall on its own merits not on preconceived intuitions.

I more than once noted that Sungenis seemed obsessed with Jews and that he freely and uncritically reproduced statements that placed Jews in a bad light–going even so far as to quote a high Nazi official against the Jews.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH… Ok I hear the sob story, but on to the real issue that its really about the movie… right?

On tonight’s program Sungenis didn’t refer to any of his tens of thousands of words written against Jews. He just claimed that in his writings he criticized Catholics twice as often as he criticized Jews. No doubt a word count of the articles that appeared at his website would show that this is a grotesque exaggeration.

I was wrong, Karl is obsessed with Bob’s literature on the Jews.  By the way, why does Bob have to apologize for what he said which is the same as what any Church father would have said?  Political Judism is a real force to be reconned with in his mind.  It is a topic he explores.  Mr. Keating thinks its off limits, probably because he doesn’t want to be put on the ADL’s hit list like Bob or the Remnant… but whatever.

A puzzler: Voris said that he didn’t know Mark Shea. Strange. They had a public debate at the Argument of the Month Club in St. Paul last October. Hundreds of people were in attendance. Has Voris forgotten that encounter already?

Mr. Keating why are you lying??  AGAIN WHY ARE YOU LYING?  It is here that I could devolve right into your line of thinking and say that since Mr. Keating lies in his facebook posts about someones character and representations then we cannot trust his companies work but that would be a logical fallacy, the very thing you again and again commit.

At the end of the program Sungenis and DeLano announced that “The Principle” would have its theatrical release on September 9. It will be shown, apparently, at one theater in one (unnamed) “major city.” The distribution is being handled by Rocky Mountain Pictures.

Good for them, I hope it draws attention and people can judge the film for what it is based on its own merits and not on preconceived notions by someone that has never seen it to begin with.

According to the website Box Office Mojo, this two-man organization has promoted 24 indie films. Five of them grossed more than a million dollars, the two best known being “2016: Obama’s America” ($33.4 million) and “Expelled” ($7.7 million). But 12 of the films brought in less than $100,000, the least bringing in $2,000.

And the point is?  It’s a film, if people want to see it good, if not fine.  But the implication is that this distributer is nothing to get excited about.  Pray tell how many distributers CA has ever dealt with?

The two big-grossers had famous names (Dinesh D’Souza and Ben Stein, respectively), which no doubt accounted for much of their box-office success. “The Principle” features no one of comparable fame.

The obvious point to be made is whether or not truth is dependent on income or popularity?  Regardless if the findings are true or not don’t put the cart before the horse.

Of the 24 films handled by Rocky Mountain Pictures, 15 appeared in 30 or fewer theaters–hardly enough to cover costs of production.

I know this may sound odd, but a half a year ago they didn’t have a distributer so having one is pretty good.  I don’t think their goal is to cover costs so much as to get the info out their.  If the goal was to cover costs they could have one week sessions where they declaire in what dire straights their in and how they need funding desperately or the show might stop.  Wait that’s you show Karl… whoops.

Box Office Mojo lists the production budget of only two of the 24 films. “The End of the Spear” brought in $12 million and cost $10 to produce, so it made a profit. “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” brought in $4.6 million but cost $20 million, so it had a big loss–surprising, perhaps, for a film based on a best-selling novel.

Again truth is dependent on popularity and numbers?... this is sooooo petty Karl. 

What can one expect for a documentary based, if it’s based on anything, on the non-seller** “Galileo Was Wrong”?

It should be painfully obvious at this point to any… and I MEAN ANY, rational mind that Mr. Keating is just using this opportunity to go after Bob Sungenis… PETTY KARL KEATING

The bottom line is that Sungenis and DeLano didn’t announced what, months ago, they promised to announce: Opening night in multiple cities with a major distributor handling their film. Rocky Mountain Pictures is a small outfit, and “The Principle” will open in just one city, presumably at just one theater. It will have to do very well there to go on the road.

(*I think my name was mentioned just once. The sound was off during a good portion of the program–there was a glitch at the studio–so it’s possible I was referred to more than once.)

(“Galileo Was Wrong” has an Amazon best-sellers rank of 7,874,135 among books.)

I would like to say that I enjoy some of the apologetical materials put forth by CA, but the more and more this goes on the more and more it is clear to me that His group and say National Catholic Reporter are not different in substance, but only in accidents.  When the Estates met before the French revolution they began to splinter off into different directions among themselves.  Most notably what we today call the left and the right or liberals (progressives) and conservatives.  The mistake is to see the two as opposed to one another, when in truth they are of one mind.  As GK Chesterton put it,

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

You might say this is over reacting to the issue but I will give you two key examples:

How many times did conservative Catholic organizations link to articles on NCReporter because "well, their put out by John Allen, so they are worth it?  Do you know what you call giving drink to a drunkard?  Enabling, and in this case you are not just supporting John Allen but you support the heretical rag he writes willingly for, and you, YOU knowingly do so! When Bishop Finn ordered the rag remove Catholic from its title and was ignored he asked his brother Bishops to not enable the rag, but since its John Allen (AGAIN WHO KNOWINGLY WRITES FOR THE HERETICAL RAG!!!!) they went ahead and enabled the dissenters to maintain their evil propagation!  

The second example is how Mark Shea, a noted conservative, neo-con, w/e... goes out of his way to twist doctrine to his own ends making a mockery out of the faith.  You might think that I am way off here but I beg you to go to the following link HERE and then tell me im way off base.

The point is when you pretend to hold Keating, Shea and others out as the solution (which I dont think they propose themselves as) you will be seriously disappointed

As for me I'm looking forward to the Principle.  More discussion on things allowed not less

+JMJ+