Theoretical physicist, Lawrence Krauss, responds to surprising news that he participated in the making of "documentary" promoting geocentricism.

For all who asked: Some clips of me apparently were mined for movie on geocentricism. So stupid does disservice to word nonsense. Ignore it.
— Lawrence Krauss (@LKrauss1) April 8, 2014

Courtesy of Slate:  

A month or so ago, and again last night, my email, Facebook, and Twitter accounts began to buzz about clips of me appearing in some purported new documentary film promoting … wait for it … geocentrism! The notion that anyone in the 21st century could take seriously the notion that the sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, is almost unbelievable. I say almost, because one of the trials and tribulations of being a scientist with some element of popular celebrity is that I get bombarded regularly by all sorts of claims, and have become painfully aware that ideas as old as the notion that the Earth is flat never seem to die out completely. Nevertheless, even after being inured to such things, I was surprised to learn of the premise of the film, until I learned that its producer also apparently questions the Holocaust. It is tempting to say that both claims are obscene nonsense, but I believe that does a disservice to the word nonsense. 

So, the question I had to face after discovering this abuse of my words was what to do about it. I have no recollection of being interviewed for such a film, and of course had I known of its premise I would have refused. So, either the producers used clips of me that were in the public domain, or they bought them from other production companies that I may have given some rights to distribute my interviews to, or they may have interviewed me under false pretenses, in which case I probably signed some release. I simply don’t know. 

Many people have suggested I litigate. But this approach seems to me to be completely wrong because it would elevate the profile of something that shouldn’t even rise to the level of popular discussion. The best thing we can all do when faced by nonsense like that, or equivalent silliness promoted by biblical fundamentalists who claim that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible, is to ignore it in public forums, and not shine any light on the authors of this trash. As far as this particular film is concerned, one might hope that it has high production value that cost the producers a lot of money. Then, when no one beyond the three people in the country who may somehow have missed the last 500 years of science and history during their education watches the film, we can hope that the whole misbegotten enterprise will bankrupt the production company, or at least severely cramp its style.

I have to agree with Professor Krauss here, though it might be fun to watch this idiot defend his unauthorized  use of the clips, it would also provide attention to something which does not deserve any.

However I am not sure I agree with him when it comes to his policy of ignoring those who espouse a literal interpretation of the Bible, and try to interject it into politics and education.

While I understand how distasteful it is to engage with mental midgets, there a lot of stupid people in the country who see them as visionaries or prophets.

It would certainly serve the greater good if there were always somebody ready and willing to shame these imbeciles every time they opened their slack jawed mouths.

You know, besides me of course.

As for Kate Mulgrew, the narrator of this piece of fiction, she is none to happy to have her name associated with it either:

“I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism,” Mulgrew said in her statement. “More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that.” 

You know I don't think it exactly helps to convince people that you have a point of view worth considering, when it turns out you had to manipulate stolen film footage of scientists into making it appear they agree with you, and then trick an actress into narrating your "documentary."

I'm just saying.

(P.S. Here is my earlier post about this film.)