Also that book, the original paper, and everything else promotes the “wrong” idea that everyone has had all this time. If in fact he had other intentions for the experiment from the beginning, he took 40+ years to communicate them.

Really I’m being needlessly kind here. He only changed his tune once called out, and his claims that this was what the experiment was about all along are in direct contrast to his communicated intent from the beginning. What do we call it when you publish something that says A, while knowing A is untrue? Scientific fraud.