From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/16/2026 6:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > [..]   
   >   
   >>   My guess   
   >> is that these documents and the later Papal involvement in the second   
   >> Galileo case are just covered up by claiming that these were not   
   >> official papal actions.   
   >   
   > That's the heart of your problem; you ignore all the authoritative   
   > sources and *guess* alternatives that fit your preconceptions.   
   >   
   > [..]   
   >   
      
   Your sources have to lie about reality and get caught lying.  The Pope   
   did condemn heliocentrism in 1616, that was verified by the Jesuits   
   putting up the document that the Pope had ordered to be created.  The   
   document was not created by the inquisition, but by the Papal offices.   
   The anti-geocentrists want to claim that the Pope publishing and   
   distributing the Galileo case throughout the church was not an offical   
   papal action because they do not want the Pope to have been involved in   
   any claims about geocentrism.  So it is my guess that the 1616 papal   
   actions are considered to not have been an official papal act.  What do   
   you and your Catholic source that lied about heliocentrism never being   
   condemned other than by the inquisition think about that 1616 papal   
   action condemning heliocentrism?  It is your dishonest side of the issue   
   that has to do the waffling interpretation.  The Jesuits made no claim   
   as to whether it was an official papal action, they just stated what the   
   Pope did.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)