On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to keep lying about reality.
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:LOL, Ron's version of Taking the FifthOn Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:>
>On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:>On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
[…]
>I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.>
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review.
Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the
form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer
review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to
share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always
been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that
you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that
explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise
condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim
that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying
about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition
and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had
heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in
1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and
that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a
heretic.
[…]
Harran REPOST 1 that he has snipped out and can't deal with in any honest and rational manner because he knows that whatever he has done has never been enough to counter the fact that he has been lying about the situation for years.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running from and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that he can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
>>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
>>>>> heresy charge in 1616 … surely it can't be that difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have snipped and
>>>> run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
>>>
>>> C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
>>> that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
>>> quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
>>> or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
>>> can it?
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
>
> I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
> of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
> withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner. Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies. In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco. There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>> […]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
>>>>>>>> and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
>>>>>>>> how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
>>>>>>> disagrees with him a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality,
>>>>>> and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
>>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
>>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
>>>>>> Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
>>>>>> with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
>>>>>
>>>>> The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
>>>>> caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
>>>>> the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
>>>>> sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
>>>>> mined.
>>>>>
>>>>> [... more big snip ...]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
>>>> just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
>>>> for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
>>>> deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
>>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
>>>> condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
>>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
>>>> out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same
>>>> evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
>>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
>>>> it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
>>>> lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
>>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
>>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
>>>> adding to how low you needed to go.
>>>
>>> Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
>>> of something to support them.
>>>
>>> What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
>>> failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
>>> *you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
>>> don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
>>> you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
>>>
>>
>> You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
>> found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
>> you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
>>
>> The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
>>
>> I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
>> resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
>
> So why don't you instead of talking about it?
>
> Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
> paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> […]
>
>>>>>> The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
>>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
>>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
>>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
>>>>> them again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by claiming you
>>>>> gave links but cannot repeat them?
>>>>
>>>> Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
>>>> trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
>>>
>>> That was this site:
>>> https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
>>>
>>> The one where the Catholic Church states:
>>>
>>> " In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
>>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
>>> false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
>>>
>>> The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
>>> declaring
>>>
>>> "It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
>>> Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
>>> knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
>>> of the body which calls itself the Church."
>>>
>>> The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
>>>
>>> "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
>>>
>>> It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
>>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
>>> guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
>>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
>>> you up.
>>
>> Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
>> the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
>> Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
>> distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
>> site, but it was still a heresy.
>
> What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
> all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church. The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions. They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that somewhere there is a document that has the information on what restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
>
> The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
> issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the
> proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
> is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
>
> That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
> says:
>
> "it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
> grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
> principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
>
> Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure
> whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
> bad translation from the Latin.
>
> The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
> rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
> act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
> the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
> guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
> knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
> mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going
> against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
>
> It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
> trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
> murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported the Wiki claims.
>
>
>>
>> The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
>> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
>> reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
>> Council of Trent were published.
>>
>> The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
>> charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
>> not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
>> still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
>> heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
>> the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
>> The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
>> published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
>> heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
>> just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
>> stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
>> to plead that he was not acting as pope?
>>
>> There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
>> They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
>> should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
>>
>> The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
>> into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
>> and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
>> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
>> Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
>> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
>> church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
>> scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
>> to be true.
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Council of Trent
>> Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
>> the Sacred Books:
>>
>> ... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
>> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
>> matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
>> Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
>> presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
>> which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
>> and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
>> even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
>> interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
>> Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
>> with the penalties by law established."
>> END QUOTE:
>>
>> https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
>>
>> Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
>> the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
>> heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
>> beliefs of the church fathers.
>
> You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to
> persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
> theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
> opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
> bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
>
>>
>> It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
>> current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
>> one of the mistaken actors.
>
> The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo
> presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
> powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
> spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error.
>
> "It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
> Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
> knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
> of the body which calls itself the Church."
>
> The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
> was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
> nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
> vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
>
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
>>>
>>>
>>> So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
>>
>> I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
>
> The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
> you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
> figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
> nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
> and continuing to do so.
>
> Weird to say the least.
>
>
> [...]
>
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site. The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
>>>
>>> The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
>>> you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
>>> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
>>> figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
>>> nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
>>> and continuing to do so.
>>>
>>> Weird to say the least.
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> You were given the links before,
>
> Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything worth you attempting.
>
>> so stop lying about it. Why should I
>> look up that junk again.
>
> So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
> gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
> so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this round should count as three strikes against you.
>
>> You just denied that it was valid and kept
>> lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
>> The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
>> was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
>> with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
>> charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
>> Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
>> this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
>>
>> Just stop lying about the issue.
>>
>> https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
>>
>> They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
>> Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
>>
>> They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
>> Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
>>
>> Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
>> END QUOTE:
>
> Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
> condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
> was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
> who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
> it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
> say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that you got last time.
>
>
>> Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
>> catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
>> formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
>
> Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
> there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
> heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo. What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around the heresy conviction.
>
>>
>> You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
>> change.
>
> You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
> heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
> identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
>
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge. You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had done.
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
> [snip for focus]
>
>>>> Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
>>>>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
>>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
>>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
>>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>> Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
>>> condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
>>> was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
>>> who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
>>> it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
>>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
>>> say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
>>> you value so highly.
>>
>> You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
>> and check. It was your quote.
>
> Here is verbatim what I quoted:
>
> Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
> ========================================
> <quote>
>
> The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
>
> "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
>
> ==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure of Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is Rome’s one and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
>
> #1: it was von Gebler who said “never condemned”, not me as you
> claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
>
> #2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
> condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
>
> Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
>
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>>> Let's cut to the chase here.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No lies to retract. You lied.
>>>
>>> What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
>>> that you regard as a lie.
>>
>> The ones that you keep telling.
>>
>> "Never condemned"
>
> I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
> with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
> waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
> who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
> give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
> to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with the same material and historical events and agreed with the geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in 1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times. They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy. You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
>
> What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
> Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
> posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
> see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I
> respect so much 🙁
>
> ===========================================
>
> [1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
> the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
>
> [von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
>
>
> [..]
>
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue. The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality.
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient. Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition. The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>>
>> You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
>> Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
>> continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.