Liberal idiots who have not seen this movie yet are already bashing it

Well, sadly, they're reading Phil Plait's Slate article ("Warning," he says, "head asplodey stuff enclosed," ha, ha), and Kate Mulgrew's claim of being "duped" and judging the project sight unseen based on those comments.

It's especially disappointing that Kate Mulgrew would say that; how could she not know what it was about if she narrated? I guess we'll see when it comes out. Perhaps her narration by itself could read as completely academic, but somehow I doubt it.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to it, and will approach it with an open mind.

Well... when Kate Mulgrew and Lawrence Krauss came up claiming they didn't know what the movie was about, I remember thinking exactly that. If they want people to avoid it, it would be better to just keep their mouths shut. Instead, it gained a lot of free advertising.

I think I probably already know everything that will be in the movie, but I can't hold the expectation to see Krauss saying the CMB anomalies suggest Earth is in the Center of the Universe, after claiming he doesn't know how he ended up in the movie, or that he's being quoted out of context.

You mean educated? If you knew more about the universe, you'd understand; then again, that involves curiosity...and religion bans that...

It's not even liberal or conservative....it's the fact that we have very little expectations from a documentary that claims the heavens revolve around the earth.

This Show Was A Lot Funnier Before Kirstie Alley Ate Shelly Long

Way to big up what is effectively already known to be the largest damp squib outside of a Ray comfort debacle.

As for all this rubbish about waving people's permission slips around - it is such a shame that those permission slips themselves don't say anything about the premise of the movie and the fact that it's an attempt to explicitly endorse geocentrism.
I bet if the interviewees had been expressly asked about geocentrism, they'd have given the actual arguments against it, rather than a load of highly editable vagueries that seem centered around the non-shocking idea that relative motion observed from different reference frames has a kinematic equivalence.
Wow. Big whoop. Do you want a cookie?

And you all missed the point that Barbour made - that his 1977 paper, co-authored with Bertotti ("Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework"), that is being touted around as a geocentric paper, actually has the Earth moving around the Sun.
Oh dear.
Yes, geocentrifrauds can only find a non-geocentric paper to hijack and proclaim as somehow being a geocentric paper.
Morons like Malcolm Bowden have openly lied about the contents of that paper - and then undermined themselves by actually posting the paper for all to see on their website - and for all to see how it isn't a geocentric paper at all.

As for the CMB anomalies (which are rapidly losing significance as it is, as foreground contaminations are being accounted for more and more), even if it does exist, it still doesn't provide evidence for a stationary Earth at the center of the universe.
Apart from the fact that these maps are made from the L2 point (meaning that, if you wanted to play that game, it's the L2 point and not the Earth that is at the center of the universe), there's also the probelm that every body in the solar system would see the same thing.
In fact, every system that has an inclination the same as ours would also see the same thing.
Yes, if you want to say that the CMB anomaly proves that the Earth is in a special place - then it also proves that every body in the solar system is, and every other planetary system in the entire universe with the same inclination as our solar system is also special.

Basically, it's the biggest non-sequitur in the universe.

The fact remains that Sungenis has nothing but kinematic equivalence to go on - but you can't impose an absolute reference frame based on kinematics alone.
He has no physics to back up his rubbish.
The universe doesn't even act like it has a center - not even the center of mass that Sungenis wants to posit.
If it did, we wouldn't observe galaxies and galactic clusters moving away from each other and from us at faster than escape velocity, meaning they aren't gravitationally bound; we wouldn't measure the zero-sum angular momentum that we do; and we'd see all the galaxies and galactic clusters moving looking bodies in free fall revolving around a center of mass, where their angular momentum decreases as a function of their distance from that center of mass - which, unfortunately for you scientifically illiterate reality deniers, we don't.