Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Friday, June 10, 2016

Banned From SD, Cassini Has More To Say

Last month, I told you crazy kids about how the Echo Chamber decided it would be best for the community if Cassini were ostracized for daring to discuss geocentrism.  

Obviously, I think that Too-long-didn't-read Kaesekopf is overreacting as he always does, that he is a dictator who has no clue how to throw a party, and that he fears subjects he is too lazy to give any consideration.  His place is a laughing stock, and I pity those who carefully and fearfully tread on his eggshells.  

Cassini, however, shall not be silenced here, at my homebase.  I give him the floor.  Take it away, Cassini:


Sorry Cassini, you are banned from using this forum!
Promoting geocentrism, decreeing it as infallible/dogmatic. Permanent ban.
This ban is not set to expire.
This is the second so called ‘Catholic’ forum that has banned me for my defense of the 1616 papal decree of Pope Paul V that defined as formal heresy those who rejected the geocentric references of Scripture. The other forum was Catholic Answers.
Here above I am accused of ‘promoting geocentrism.’ Now that on its own would not bring on a ban, merely offer many of its members the opportunity to have a laugh at Cassini’s expense. 400 years of belief of earth-flying-around-the-sun "magic" has established it as an absolute fact. Indeed, such has been the propaganda from churchmen and scientists, that if any even tries to challenge this ‘fact’ they must be held as ‘retarded idiots.’
In fact, that is the last thing I really promote, for it is merely the subject matter of Pope Paul V’s decree. What I really promote is that the papal decree published by the Holy Office in 1616 was an ‘infallible’ decree thus making the subject matter of Heliocentrism heresy, and geocentrism Catholic dogma.
Now, who decides what is a dogma within Catholicism? Is it 300 years of heliocentric-believing theologians? Is it the majority of posters on a Catholic forum? Is it the Moderator of Catholic Answers or the moderator of Suscipe Domine? No, the Church decides, and it is popes who speak for the Church.
Now, Cassini has read in Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo, something that was hidden in the secret archives until translated from Italian into English in the 1980s--that the 1616 decree against Galileo’s heliocentrism was judged as ‘irreversible’ that is infallible, 'certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures’ as the Holy Office of 1820 agreed. In other words, for the fourth time, popes in 1616, 1633, 1664 and 1820 agreed with the fact that the 1616 decree was ABSOLUTE, without error and binding.
But the moderator of two Catholic forums have banned me for upholding this Catholic dogma agreed by popes and never abrogated.


As I've said before, here at The Hirsch Files, you people will have your place to talk.  I will not censor you here.  If any of you folks get banned, shunned, or treated like crap, you come on over and state your case.  I assure you, your colleagues read this blog.  

Many times, different topics require "subtlety and finesse," as Michael Savage would put it.  Moreover, if you are going to succeed in good talk, you're going to take off your "emotion hat," and embrace some dialectic discussion.  Are there any readers who possess any kind of a quality resembling this?  Kudos to you, if you can.

Many folks get emotional over different topics, and they incapable of looking at any of the fine points.  If you lack nuance, and you don't even care to look up what "nuance" means, then stop reading this.  If you think you know everything, and all you are capable of is reacting with your emotional rhetoric, then stop reading this.  If thought-out discussion about real and observable phenomenon bores you to tears because you're a TL;DR tabloid reader, then stop reading this.  If you simply blow off the technical details of a conversation, and it all strikes you as drama, then check your Facebook feed.  If you lack the ability to shut up and simply read what the other man is saying to you, then return to your clique.

Here, floating in the void of the internet, floats my space station: The Hirsch Files.  And in this place, free thought is allowed and fakery is exposed.  In this matter, I share the same sentiment as Vox Day:
In case my position is not clear, let me state it outright: I reject the concept of credibility by association.
I am not a moderate, I am outlet-agnostic. No one owns me and no one dictates what I can and what I cannot say.
Here, beyond the walls of your typical internet community village, I will NOT be policed.  If a discussion forum moderator doesn't like intellectual discussion, and only blowhard rhetoric and rah-rah cheerleading, then count me out.  Ham-fisted, TL;DR, I-don't-care-what-you-have-to-say emotional speech dictatorship and zombified mob-mentality groupthink have no place here.  I don't have time to walk on eggshells or the patience to qualify everything I say to some nanny.  Intellect will NOT be shut off here.  Any leftover r-selected rabbits should go off and play in a meadow.

Seventh Rule: Fights will go on as long as they have to.

With that said, next post, we'll take a look at some of what Cassini is trying to tell us in a book he wrote, titled The Earthmovers.  Outer space, interplanetary exploration, and cosmology have always fascinated me, and I think it's high time that we crack open the topic of the latest geocentric movement.



  1. Couple points.

    If "forum owners/moderators" of "traditional Catholic forums" are going to BAN someone like Cassini for his thread on heliocentricism, then in the first place they ought to have specified in their Rules of the Forum section exactly what sorts of eccentric or controversial topics are tolerated, or not, and then in due course cite said rule.

    Second point, science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth revolves around the sun, but even within philosophy of science, scientific laws themselves are not immutable.

    In my mind, the question Cassini would need to answer is: exactly what does the Catholic Church teach about its own the scope of the Magisterium with regards to questions of science or natural philosophy? To what extent can a Pope or Ecumenical Council make infallible statements about subjects of science or nature, while not going beyond "faith and morals"?

    Christ did not give Peter or his successors the divine authority to infallibly teach on the geometrical shape of a DNA double helix, or if the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa. The Magisterium has limits on what subjects it can define as divinely revealed doctrine.

    My understanding is that the Papal decree against Galileo was not defining geocentricism as Church doctrine, but condemning anti-Catholic and anti-biblical sentiments in Galileo's writings.

    1. 'Second point, science proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth revolves around the sun, but even within philosophy of science, scientific laws themselves are not immutable.'

      Is this not a contradiction, proving beyond a reasonable doubt while saying scientific laws themselves are not immutable.'

      Albert Einstein was used by science after the 1887 M&M experiment (that indicated the earth does not move) to get the earth moving again. He did so by creating his Special Theory of Relativity, and his General Theory of Relativity.
      If I told you Einstein's Relativity confessed that there is no way mankind can PROVE if the earth moves around the earth or if the earth moves around the sun. That is the scientific position after 400 years of investigation.

      Now I am not a dope. I used to be a heliocentrist like everyone else for hundreds of years. I was INDOCTRINATED that way, to deny what I witness every day, month and year of my life.

      As a young man I never could come to accept the Galileo case, where a pope and his theologians defined and decreed formal heresy that turned out to be false. Then one day an American, Paul Ellwanger told me to investigate the science and I would find out no such proof that the Church was wrong ever existed. It was one of the greatest cons ever in order to undermine the Catholic Church. And that is what happened.

  2. Hirsch, dude, are you seriously toying with geocentrism? You've got me scratching my head for sure.

    And, besides, infallibility has to do with teaching on faith and morals.

    Are you going off the rails?


    1. Here is the answer to your question. It comes from Cardinal Bellarmine:

      Born in Montepulciano Italy, Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found anywhere else in the Church. By his books - published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation - he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England. Bellarmine’s catechism, translated into forty languages, spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the then Christian world. Robert Bellarmine had many interests, one being an affinity for science. At the University of Louvain he was qualified enough to lecture on astronomy and in 1611 had viewed the sky through a telescope and had seen ‘some very marvellous things.’ Thus we can see that he was qualified to judge and comment on all aspects of the Galileo case.

      Here is what he said about the geocentrism of Scripture:

      ‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

    2. "Hirsch, dude, are you seriously toying with geocentrism? You've got me scratching my head for sure.

      Toying? Sure. I've always been a fan of astronomy and cosmology. I mean...the avatar I use in forums and comments is a man wearing a rocketpack.

      The fascinating thing about speculating on a geocentric universe, aside from the recent Planck satellite data, is the fact that we can neither prove the earth is rotating around the sun, nor can we prove the sun is rotating around the Earth.

      And, in any event, entertaining the thought for a minute doesn't really have any bearing on anyone's life, anyhow. Whatever the answer is, it's all speculation until we die.

      I heartily recommend watching The Principle. It's a good documentary. Have you seen it yet, MLH? I'll loan it to you if you haven't yet.

      Most of all, however, I'm giving Cassini a chance to have his say. His ban was more an act of bullying than anything, as many members and ex-members will privately tell you.

    3. 'And, in any event, entertaining the thought for a minute doesn't really have any bearing on anyone's life, anyhow. Whatever the answer is, it's all speculation until we die.'

      And here is where Cassini differs from so many. I am a Catholic and that makes a big difference. Catholicism is truth personified, or so I was taught to believe. For me a pope decreed that the Bible tells us it is the sun, moon and stars that revolve around the stable earth. He declared we can know this based on Catholic faith. As a Catholic I now accept this in spite of other Catholic popes and others who for centuries have tried to deny this act of faith.
      Science is based on evidence. Science cannot provide proofs. Scientific preference should move to whichever side the greatest evidence indicates. A careful study shows that when 'proofs' for heliocentrism are examined in detail, like the Airy experiment of Stellar Aberration, the results indicate geocentrism. but heliocentrism has long become a dogma of the secular religion, adopted even by popes and Catholics. If they had a true Catholic faith this was the ULTIMATE test. Ah but that was a decree too far. A new dogma was born, Human reasoning is far more likely to be true than something the Bible says.

    4. Cassini, here's a question, then. Just how can accepting that the sun revolves around the Earth affect our daily lives?

    5. Good question Hirsch. The words 'our daily lives' restricts the question to the personal level. As a person who has lived 50 years as a heliocentrist and 24 (today is my birthday) as a geocentrist, my time as a G has without doubt 'set me free' in many ways.
      I am free from the 'magic' of scientism that now dominates human philosophy and ideology.
      As a Catholic my faith has been elevated to a higher level. My 20 years investigating and pondering on that historic clash between faith and science, recorded for 300 years as a great victory for science, has given me an insight into how the Holy Ghost actually protected faith from science. We cannot prove scientifically that the sun, moon and stars rotate around the earth, but we can find proof that the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. Had history as recorded over the last 300 years on the affair been correct, the dogma of infallibility would have been proven a myth. Andrew White knew this in 1887, Fr W.W. Roberts knew this in 1870 as did Hans Kung in 1983. Indeed Kung is to get a meeting with Pope Francis on infallibility in the near future. Be sure he will try this ploy.
      By finding no proof for a 1616 error, and that no pope thereafter dared to abrogate it as an error, I have proven to myself there is a power superior to human invention and thought.

      Now lest any think the consequence is intellectual pride, well God has protected me (and the relatively few others) from this in allowing ridicule for those who dare profess this truth of Scripture. There is a history of such geocentric ridicule, coming both from Churchmen and secularists, so that any trying to defend the 'geocentric' Church up to the 18th century would be portrayed as 'retards' and that would be the end to it. Indeed I have had my fair share, but it only confirms my new found belief.

  3. Cassini, few questions.

    1. What got you involved in geocentrism?

    2. How has your defense of it been received on the internet?

    3. Are clergymen, etc supporting this today?

    4. Why do you feel it is such an important subject?

  4. 1. What got you involved in geocentrism?

    I was educated as an evolutionist and heliocentrist like most of the Human race for hundreds of years. My wife was not and evolutionist. She found it stupid. I put it down to my better education ('intellectual pride'?) One Sunday at our Latin Mass she bought me a book. 'Here, read that and learn something,' she said.
    It took me 15 minutes to realise I was educated to believe TRIPE. I was furious. Pius XII was an evolutionist, let alone John Paul II. How in God's name, I asked, did it come to this?
    I decided to investigate. I found out the very first evolutionary theory of the modern era was the NEBULAR THEORY. And where did it come from. It came from that heliocentric Solar System of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Issac Newton. And where did that come from, and was it true? That started it.

    2. How has your defense of it been received on the internet?

    Mixed. Found some who are 100 with me, others 100% against me view. There are however serious reasons for the attempts to undermine my geocentrist position. I have found the history of that 1741-1835 U-turn of the 1616 decree, is a SCANDAL I could hardly believe possible in the Catholic Church.

    3. Are clergymen, etc supporting this today?

    Two of my SSPX priests are geocentrists. A good friend had some early drafts of my writings copies and given to priests. There is no campaign ongoing. Robertt Sungennis has been in the public eye for some years now but he has not caused any earthquake. Reasons for this are given above.

    4. Why do you feel it is such an important subject?

    Because there is no other matter like it in the history of the Catholic Church. Justice demands the truth of it be restored within an institution that represents truth itself.
    justice now insists on an apology to all the popes and theologians who defended the Church’s 1616 decree right up to 1835 for what was said and thought of them, especially the false accusations of Vatican Council II, by the 1981-1992 papal commission, and by Pope John Paul II personally and God knows who else.

  5. Cassini,
    Do you have a website and is it possible for an average person without an astronomy background to follow your arguments coherently?

    Also, what is your background? Do you have the advanced mathematics or astronomy for this? A few years ago, if I recall correctly, I read from a sedevacantist working with rockets that the mathematical formulas worked with both theories but the heliocentric model worked better.

    1. No Harry, I do not have a website. Of course it is possible for an average person to follow the story. I am one of those average persons and I understand enough to make my choice.

      My background; Left school at 18. Mink-farmer until retirement. Never read a full book until I was 50.
      Perhaps the best inspiration to tackle an understanding of this complicated subject was the sedevacantist N.M. Gwynne.

      Here is what he wrote about Albert Einstein's work:

      ‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’ (N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.7.)

      Now there are many different aspects to the Galileo case. The book Cambridge Companion to Galileo for example, their selected bibliography includes nearly 200 books written by over 100 authors; again all Copernicans who believe science proved Galileo right.

      Now I have no advanced mathematics nor astronomy, but Providence sent me a man who has, self-learned genius.

      What I decided to do was to compile every single aspect of the Galileo case and write one book on it.

      Now to make a choice all one has to do is show there is no proof for heliocentrism. The Church does not have to prove its geocentric interpretation. I do this.

      Now Robert Sungenis has delved into the science and mathematics far deeper than anyone ever did or tried. He has a website. He can give you pages showing the maths can work both ways.

      In my case I show the maths - like Newton's relativity -themselves are the fraud, for God's will cannot be shown mathematically.

    2. No Anon, I do not have a website. I have just finished writing a book and hope to get it published soon.

      If it is the scientific end of geocentrism and heliocentrism that interests you well Robert Sungenis is your man. He has a website. His THE PRINCIPLE movie is on website.

      That said there is not much to astronomy. Astronomy is a visual exercise, charting what you see. All there is to see is the planets orbiting the sun, the sun orbiting the earth, and the moon orbiting the earth once a month. The first astronomers thought everything circled the earth. Copernicus said the earth and planets orbit the sun, and Tycho de brahe said the sun with its orbiting planets orbit the earth.

      That is all the astronomy needed. Which order it really is cannot be determined by human science.

      The Fraud entered when Isaac Newton invented CAUSES for a heliocentric solar-system. His THEORIES were accepted by the heliocentrists and they turned his theories into LAWS. Now if you take a theory as a LAW then you cheat, for theories are not laws. Investigation of these theories show flaws. Indeed Einstein had to correct newton's 'LAWS.'

      For me I approached the Galileo case from the point of view of Church theology. I researched the history of heliocentrism leading up to Galileo. Then I researched every detail of the Galileo case and its aftermath. Finocchiaro's RETRYING GALILEO is superb. It gives details of everything, all translated from the Vatican archives.

      Now 1,000,000 websites tell of the Church's ERROR in defending a geocentrism revealed in Scripture. They all say proofs were found for heliocentrism. I investigated these so-called proofs and even I could see they were not PROOFS for anything. In other words the theology of the 1616 decree was never found in error. But from 1741 the popes began to accept the lie that proofs showed the 1616 decree wrong and began a long U-turn of the Church's LAW. The scandal of this U-turn is UNBELIEVABLE.

      And I do not have any advanced maths or astronomy. I have a pal who does however and he taught me everything about TRUE astronomy discovered by Domenico Cassini.That said, I have written up the story for all to understand, even me, and I am no genius. N.M. Gwynne, sedevacantist, gave me the CONFIDENCE to decide for myself that rubbish is rubbish, even if Einstein put forward that rubbish.

      Yes, according to Sungenis, Newton's maths can be shown to asccount for both systems. I reject the maths altogether. Theories do not tell us any truths. Two sedevacantists helped me in my research. Others like the Dimond brothers have written a lot trying to uphold heliocentrism. I think they did this to preserve their sedevacantism. You see if heliocentrism is heresy, then popes allowed heresy to be believed by the flock, and if they believed in the heresy themselves then sedevacantism must have begun is 1741 not 1962.