Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 103515 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #180 on:** February 21, 2014, 02:11:55 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: With the path thus cleared, the influence of the Hermetica spread throughout Europe with a speed and intensity that beggared belief. A couple of examples should suffice to show this. In their book Talisman, the authors tell us that the Bishop of Aire, François Foix de Candalle, dedicated his publication of the Hermetica to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian II (who reigned from 1564 to 1576) with the popular view that the knowledge of Hermēs complemented that revealed to the Hebrews and the Apostles.

Then there was the Italian, Francesco Patrizzi. His collection of the Hermetica, presented to Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, hailed Hermēs as the ‘source of all wisdom’ and he pleaded with the Pope to urge Catholics to use the thoughts of Hermēs to bring about Jєωιѕн conversions into the Catholic Church.

We have arrived at ground zero. What is the source of all the evils of modernity, if not the influx of poison - occult, esoteric, luciferian poison - into the very heart, bowels, and veins of the Church, through the conduit of members of the hierarchy!!!!! Nothing happens in the universal Church, for better or for worse, that does not start with the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

This vile betrayal of Jesus Christ, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the Magisterium, is not new. Infidelity to God has been with Man from the beginning. Just as in the Paradise of Pleasure, we arrive, in the 1500's, after a "State of Grace" known as the Patristic Age through the Medieval Edifice, at the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and the serpent is there, waiting impatiently for us.

With the wide dissemination of ungodliness in the form of the hermetic texts, we revisit the age-old temptation to believe in the false promise of the first fallen Angel to men: Ye shall be as gods . . .

The only thing new in all of this is the unspeakable malice and ingratitude involved in this collective sin. For our Redeemer has come and has shed His Blood for us. It is Him, personally and explicitly, that we haughtily and stupidly reject.

St. Paul aptly describes this Fall in Romans and Hebrews: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

With regard to the Catholic churchmen of the 16th Century, this manifestation is not the manifestation of the existence of the Creator by the revelation of the Creature, a truth of Reason. Rather, this manifestation is the manifestation of the Redeemer through His own words and works: God, Who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by Whom also He made the world.

The study of the evils of modernity, which every Catholic is obliged to make in order to bring his soul safely to Heaven, must begin with the secretive dissemination of pagan, idolatrous, occult texts among Catholics, in the late 1500's. It is not enough to begin with the great encyclicals of the 18th and 19th centuries. We have to go back to the source. For let's face it, what is the essence of the Renaissance, the 'rebirth,' if not that the Catholic world fell head over heels in love with the newest trend - neo-paganism. What a slap in the Holy Face of Jesus Christ to entertain, even for a second, the possibility that this drivel could contain a useful wisdom that had been capriciously hidden from man by his Creator and Redeemer.

We returned to our vomit 500 years ago, for what does this "rebirth" signify but the reassertion into the world of the diabolical spirit of pride, of Cainish deviltry, of Babelish arrogance?

Even after 1500 years of Catholic glory, men is still apt to believe demonic revelation.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #181 on:** February 21, 2014, 02:14:04 PM »

I have a mental image of the Renaissance. I think of it as akin to the Hollywood of the roaring twenties, and then of the 1960's onward. A subculture, demonic and esoteric, plots to poison the whole paste, by the clever dissemination of evil through whatever conduits are available. Inside the esoteric circle, there is a potent brew of deeply distilled filth - they drink their own poison (vade retro satana / numquam suade mihi vana / sunt mala quae libas / ipse venena bibas).

I have the image of Hollywood parties and orgies where drugs are over consumed and all manner of filth is engaged in, while the public image of the participants retains its sensible integrity. From this corruption of the Christian and natural forms comes forth a depraved anti-culture, of which these "stars" are the exemplar and the efficient, material cause.

As holy Moses writes: The people rose up to play.

I think that if we look closely enough, we can see what took place in secret in the public works of many of the men of the Renaissance. And we can also see why these unfaithful Catholics are painted by the modern esoteric subculture as brilliant lights destined to shine upon the darkness of "medievalism" and destined also to be persecuted by the Tridentine "darkness" that perennially opposes them.

Even now, men of the Renaissance are considered cool.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #182 on:** February 21, 2014, 02:19:53 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

According to Francis Yates, “the marrying together of Hermetism and Cabalism” was the invention of Pico Della Miranda [Mirandola] (1463-94), who also “united Hermetic and Cabbalistic types of magic” to create a powerful intellectual brew loosely termed the Christian Hermetic-Cabala, which was to have far-reaching consequences among Renaissance theologians, reaching even as far as the Vatican itself. And although magic, in the medieval sense, was abhorred and virtually outlawed by the Church . . . what he was advocating, he explained, was something quite other – the beautiful ancient and innocent magia naturalis, i.e., the natural magic of the wise Egyptian sage Hermes Trismegistus. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,162.)

The importance of this passage cannot be overstated. What is described herein is the essential quality of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which is a synthesis or blend of the principles, rites, and tenets of many religions, including the True Religion. It's not a stretch to say that the religion of Vatican II is essential hermetic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. It is diabolical. We cannot unite with it under any pretence and still remain faithful to God.

Pico Della Miranda was one of those who began to promote the idea that within the books of Hermēs one could find clearer insights into Catholic theology than anywhere else, and presumably the interpretations of the Christian Bible and tradition. As one could expect, the Inquisition of Pope Innocent VIII condemned Pico for suspected heresy. Pico fled to France where King Charles VIII gave him safe haven. He only returned to Florence when promised protection by the Medici ruler Lorenzo. Then, in 1493, Innocent VIII died. He was succeeded by a Borgia pope, Alexander VI, ‘who, unlike his predecessor, was rather open, indeed even sympathetic towards magic, Cabala and Hermetism.’ The Pope absolved Pico, removed the charges and even called him a ‘faithful son of the Church. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,163.)

Suddenly and, for a brief moment, there was a crack in the doors of the Vatican. Sound familiar? Through it, quietly but surely like a thief in the night, the wisdom and magic of the ‘Egyptian sage,’ Hermēs Trismegistus, slipped quickly inside. - - - Talisman, p.163.

What can one say in the face of this? There is a direct, real relation between this occurrence and Vatican II. The key to understanding Vatican II is understanding what happened during the Renaissance - and it does not begin with protestantism.

When we see the ceaseless labor expended by the popes of the 18th and 19th centuries, in order to defend against an onslaught of error in Church and State, we have to realize that they were fighting hard to stem the tidal wave of filth that finally broke out in fury at the Council.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #183 on:** February 21, 2014, 02:26:27 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now recap the history of what Catholics must see as Satan’s plan to reinstate those pagan belief as truths in our time and on until the end of the world. Today, pagan heliocentrism is regarded as a truth, (just as Noah’s deluge is regarded as a local flood) so much so that anyone who does not conform to this system is automatically branded ignorant and uneducated; someone who deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. Similarly evolutionism; the absurdity of life evolving from inanimate matter and that ‘life’ evolved to perfection by way of mutation, adding and changing more from less, an indisputable scientific impossibility. To get intelligent men and women to believe such nonsense is no less than demonic magic, power over the human mind.

In the succeeding centuries the rise of the Christian revolution swept away the surface observance of the old Mystery-religions in the Western world, and the Priest-Cults everywhere were forced to retire in disorder and to, in fact, go underground. But though the operations of the Ancient Religion have been overshadowed, in our minds, by the rise of Christianity, this religion did not die out. It continued to operate and to function and has remained the dominant religion in those lands and among those peoples who did not accept Christ. The Priestly Classes of this religion reformed its ranks and modified its tactics to respond to the Christian challenge. They adopted as their mode of operation the use of secrecy, deception, and the technique of infiltration, as methods in this struggle which they viewed as a Holy War against Christianity.

The sɛҳuąƖ and fertility elements of the religions of Baal and of Isis and Osirus, were continued but were concealed from the profane public under the doctrines of the worship of Platonic ideals such as the "Nobility of Mankind, "and "Humanity," and of "The Brotherhood of Man." Can we say "Bohemian Grove?" "Human Reason" and the "Mechanism of Blind Nature" were put forth as the ultimate forces now operating in the universe. Secret societies of the "Learned" or "Wise Men" were formed and scientific inquiry was continued in the form of medieval Astronomy, Alchemy, and Sorcery. But, again, this was scientific inquiry, not for the altruistic purpose of the development of pure learning, but a search for the secrets of nature which the Priestly Class could still employ as "magic;" secrets with which they could control the rest of humanity. This priesthood of diabolical scientism is behind the modern techno-grid that enslaves all men.

The names and titles of the adepts and leaders of this Religion are familiar to us still though we, recently, have not taken them very seriously. They were called "The All Wise Ones" or "Wizards" or "Magicians" or "Scientists," and those who dealt with the spirit world were, and still are, called "Witches," "Warlocks," and "Sorcerers."

Being a secret religious order, they adopted an elaborate symbology to be used as signs of recognition and communication between those who understood the secrets of the religion; they employed signs such as the sign of the Pyramid, Triangles, the Radiant Circle as the symbol of the Sun and of their god; Five pointed and six pointed stars, the sprig of the Acacia tree as a symbol of Life, and the Obelisk, and many other symbols plus secret signs and grips. They spoke of the god of this Religion as being the "Original Life Force," or as the "Divine Fire," or as the "Prime Mover," or as "The Great Architect of the Universe."

But finally, though these are the outward trappings of their god shown to the followers at the lower and middle levels, the leaders could not avoid the necessity of coming to conclusions when dealing with matters of the Deity. The more extreme leaders now adopted, if they had not originally done so, as the god of their worship, the Prince of this World, Satan and his Angels as their ultimate Lord and aid in this Holy War against Christ and His message. This organized group, whose ultimate god is Satan, existed in Ancient times, it existed in the Middle Ages, and it exists today. (Dr. Stuart R. Crane, lecturer supreme: The Other Religion, 1976.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #184 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:35:10 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter Eight: 1473-1543: Nicolaus Copernicus

New advances came from studying the sun and planets and stars. In this field the mighty discoverer was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish scholar who used all his powers of measuring and observing as well as that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe. - - - A Very Short History of the World. (Geoffrey Blainey: A Very Short History of the World, Penguin Books, 2004, p.279.)

Mikolaj Kopernik was born in Torun in Polish Prussia. Reared by his uncle who was a bishop and ruler of his district, it was natural for the young Nicolaus to be educated for the Church. In 1491 his uncle first sent him to the University of Krakow to study mathematics, the classics and the new humanistic studies. Thereafter he went to Bologna in Italy where he learned some Greek, studied Church law, spent two years reading medicine and even managed to get in instruction on astronomy under the influential Pythagorean-minded Domenico Maria de Novara. In 1512, unable to make a living from his studies, his uncle placed him in the cathedral of Frauenburg where his duties were as steward of Church properties and as justice of the peace. There he spent the rest of his life, gaining respect as an administrator, a capable doctor, an economist, and as we now know, quietly devoting as much spare time as he had to astronomical matters.

Copernicus marked a milestone in human history when his book, De revolutionibus – On the revolutions of heavenly spheres, was published in 1543. The reason why this moment is remembered and recorded in such vivid detail is because this is the work – centuries of propagandists would have us believe – that demonstrated our world is not geocentric as man heretofore believed, but heliocentric, with the earth spinning on its axis and orbiting round the sun. In fact, this newly published book, shown to Copernicus as he lay dying from a stroke, was not new, but an updated and more detailed version of an ignored docuмent he had circulated over 20 years earlier, his mathematical presentation of a heliocentric system that included the earth as a planet.

Copernicus’s heliocentricism first emerged in 1524 when he privately distributed an unsigned and untitled manuscript later called Commentariolus or Little Commentary. These proposals were intended to see what reaction heliocentrism would have among natural philosophers. The Commentary argued that a sun-centered planetary system, one of these being the earth, could better explain the mechanics of cosmic movements and indeed gravity, understood then as ‘heaviness.’ As it turned out, his thesis failed to make any impact or receive any serious response leaving Copernicus disappointed and disheartened.

[/size]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #185 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:37:18 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now ask just how much time did Copernicus spend studying the sun, moon, planets and stars in order to gather the data necessary to work out his system of calculation if he also had to work as a canonist, an economist and a part-time doctor?

Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs of the time]. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.73.)

Nevertheless, historically, the appearance of this work is as surprising as a mountain suddenly rising from a calm sea. (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, Oxford Uni. Press, 1986, p.81.)

And what did Copernicus find in his stargazing or in the astronomical data of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from a geocentric order to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Yet most books on astronomy and popular history, such as in the opening quote of this chapter, asserts Copernicus ‘made new advances from studying the sun and planets and stars.’ They insist Copernicus differed from Hipparchus and Ptolemy in that unlike them, he used ‘that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ They exaggerate; Copernicus never figured out any proof for his solar system.

So then, from where did Copernicus get his inspiration for his ‘new advance’ in science if it was not by way of something found through astronomical observation and study? Perhaps the following passage from his book can give us a clue.

In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a “visible god;” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around. - - - Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

Could anything be clearer? He got his inspiration for heliocentrism from the pagan cosmology of Hermēs Trismegistus. In fact all Copernicus’s ideas were long written up in the Hermetic books. One treatise explicitly states that ‘the sun is situated at the centre of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown’ and ‘around the sun are the six spheres that depend from it: the sphere of the fixed stars, the six of the planets, and the one that surrounds the earth.’ It is well known that Copernicus copied the ancient hermetic texts because it, and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.

[Lest anyone think Copernicus advanced knowledge of the ‘magnitude of the orbs,’ he didn’t. Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation, that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth – now said to be 11,500 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.]

Copernicus considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system, with its artificial equant, ‘lacked elegance,’ and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model, as can be seen in the dozens of drawings and hundreds of geometric proposals depicted through page after page in the six books of On the revolutions, was a solar system consisting of just as many, if not more, heads, ears, arms, hands, legs, knees, feet, toes and other appendages. Copernicus then, was first and foremost an out and out Hermeticist, smitten by the magic of Hermēs.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #186 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:39:18 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: In The Revolutions one of Copernicus’s deepest motivations for developing his sun-centred model was his belief that earlier interpreters of nature had produced a “translation” that was incoherent and aesthetically unappealing – one that did not do justice to the skill of the original Author Creator. (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.53.)

Here then, for any who wish to see, is another who had fallen hook, line and sinker for the magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. This church-keeper, never a priest though, more than other men, was likely to be well aware that the Scriptures depict geocentrism, an interpretation held by all the Fathers of the Catholic Church and that the Council of Trent had forbidden any change for this interpretation. Nevertheless, driven by the influence of Hermēs Trismegistus, he still introduced his prepared equilibrium into astronomy, philosophy, theology and metaphysics – heliocentrism. In De revolutionibus - the most famous book on the cosmos ever written, a book that was read by many throughout Europe, by those who shaped world history, astronomy and science - Hermēs himself is named as an inspiration. Copernicus places the central religious and mystical role of the sun as the Sermo Perfectus dictates, as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second god, placing it on that already occupied Holy Throne. Hints to this effect can be found in any proper study of Copernicus’s life and work.

Copernicus’s published works gave unmistakable, if indirect, indications of his reasons for devoting himself to astronomy. Judging by these, his intellectual and religious interests were dominant. He valued his theory of planetary motion, not because it improved navigational procedures, but because it revealed the true harmony, symmetry, and design in the divine workshop. It was wonderful and overpowering evidence of God’s presence. Writing of his achievements, which was thirty years in the making, Copernicus could not restrain his gratification: “We find, therefore, under this orderly arrangement a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a kind not possible to obtain in any other way." (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, p.70. )

The history of modern astronomy was a slow but progressive study of the heavens by constant observation and data keeping. Ptolemy’s system, built upon all that went before him, sufficed adequately for reasonably accurate astronomical predictions and for journeying over land and sea. For 1400 years it prevailed intact, with little or no improvement in sight. Then, in 1543, out of the blue, like the Phoenix of mythology, the one that embalms the ashes of its old self in an egg made of myrrh and deposits it in the Egyptian sun-city of Heliopolis; we find the myth coming to life once again. The Phoenix's ability to be reborn from its own ashes implies that it is immortal. So, like the Phoenix, the heliocentrism of Heliopolis came to life once again in Copernicus’s book, but this time described as we have seen as ‘thinking,’ as an advance in natural philosophy and astronomy.

By 1543, the same year Copernicus’s famous Revolutions of the heavenly spheres was first published in Nuremberg, there were over fifty separate editions of the Hermetica circulating in Europe! (Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval: Talisman, Sacred Cities, Sacred Faith, p.156.)

The nature of the universe, we know, is one that can be interpreted as heliocentric as well as geocentric. Copernicus’s contribution to science was to devise a system - described as a simpler system - that could calculate the relative movements of the universe in a heliocentric scenario. It was Copernicus’s failure to prove heliocentrism as a physical fact however that led to his first manuscript being ignored. Indeed, such was his disappointment at this disinterest in his system that he shelved his work and lost hope it would ever be published if further elaborated. So, what changed all that?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #187 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:42:58 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

No Rheticus, No De Revolutionibus

The overarching characteristic of Renaissance humanism was the value it placed on ancient learning as a fund of new knowledge – or, more correctly, of old knowledge that could be newly discovered. This enthusiasm specifically shaped the career of Rheticus, and on a larger scale it formed the main connection between the Renaissance and the Reformation. Both of these movements were based on the recovery and reinterpretation of ancient texts. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p 52.)

Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) was a student, and later Math professor at Martin Luther’s University of Wittenberg. Andrew White, in his book A History, mentions the ‘astronomer Rheticus’ but tells us little about him. A brilliant new book however by Professor Dennis Danielson reveals to us that were it not for Rheticus, Copernicus’s De revolutionibus most probably would never have seen the light of day. Accordingly, his relationship with Copernicus is vital to the story of the Copernican revolution.

The very idea of Reformation was infectious, and Rheticus embraced it. Lutheran fervor mixed with humanist scholarship – the translation and reinterpretation of ancient texts – not only produced monuments such as the Luther Bible but also nurtured a keen sense of discovery through reading. Given the longstanding analogy between the book of God’s words (the Bible) and the book of God’s works (the creation), there was also a natural analogy between the sets of tools used to interpret these two books: literacy and linguistic knowledge on the one hand and mathematics applied to careful observations on the other. Not until 1623 would Galileo so clearly proclaim that “this grand book, the universe… is written in the language of mathematics.” But some of the roots of this idea go back to what Luther was doing in the 1520s and 1530s. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, pp.20-21.)

Danielson goes on to say this was Martin Luther’s best-known doctrine:

If someone equipped with the tools of reading could reinterpret the text of either the Bible or the Book of Nature – independent of intervening layers of authority – whole new possibilities of understanding could emerge in the natural sciences as well as in theology. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.21.)

As it turned out, Luther knew exactly what he was doing. The rebel was also very fond of music, ‘proclaiming it second only to the Word of God.’ He considered congregational singing akin to a divine dance.

The vision of music would prove cosmically relevant to Copernicanism, for it offered an image of order and beauty within a system set in exuberant motion. In the new cosmology, one could celebrate the role of earth as a moving planet rather than a fixed point, for it meant that the earth was participating in the music of the universe, the “divine dance.” (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.23.)

Of interest to our story is the fact that in 1539 the Bishop John Dantiscus of Varmia published an expulsion order against all dissidents from Roman Catholicism. As a canon under Bishop Dantiscus, Copernicus was given a personal warning ‘not to be led astray by those under suspicion of the main heresy that he had in mind: Lutheranism.’ Two months later, the Lutheran Rheticus arrived at Frauenburg to meet Copernicus to offer him ‘assistance’ in developing his ‘new conception of the heavens.’ As his quest was ‘astronomical and not theological,’ this Lutheran was not considered a threat in any way, not even to Bishop Dantiscus, who heard of their get-together.

For two years they worked together to get their book written. During a break in their work Copernicus introduced Rheticus to his good friend Bishop Tiedemann Giese, who had given them his Episcopal residence to holiday in. Danielson tells us Rheticus and the Catholic Bishop Giese got on very well together, for both shared a passion for ‘cultivating knowledge.’

Rheticus’s specialties were in arithmetic and geometry, similar to Copernicus’s expertise. Within a year of their meeting and deliberations, Rheticus, published his own thesis on heliocentrism called First Account, a book meant to pave the way for his master’s De revolutionibus when it was put into the public arena. Rheticus’s First Account however, did what Copernicus’s earlier Commentariolus failed to do; it generated curiosity among important people. He was careful to present the new cosmology to look as though it was ‘in imitation of Ptolemy,’ with one edition calling Ptolemy ‘the father of astronomy’ and ‘divine.’ This of course was inserted to ward off the anger and rejection expected of contemporary Aristotelian philosophers, making the new cosmology look as though it was following on from Ptolemy’s work; a ploy that Isaac Newton would also use later with his ‘on the shoulders of giants’ quip.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #188 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:45:12 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: In 1541, the script of De revolutionibus was completed. Copernicus handed it over to Rheticus, who in turn had arranged with a Nuremberg publisher Johannes Petreius to print it. In 1525, we learned, the German town of Nuremberg accepted the Protestant reformation and soon thereafter no Catholic was permitted to become a citizen there. With 21 printing presses in the town, it became the media capital of the Reformation, producing books, pamphlets and broadsheets written by the likes of Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, and King Henry VIII, ensuring the ideas of the Reformation became known throughout Europe. Nuremberg also had a reputation for publishing scientific books, so one can see why De revolutionibus was so appealing to them, containing as it did ‘a new understanding of the natural sciences and theology.’ Copernicus’s book then, was in fact a product of the Protestant Reformation.

It is important to note here that a consistent theme in Bishop Williamson's teaching is an historico-philosophic timeline that posits protestantism as the beginning of modernity. Indeed it is. And what is so important about the study conducted by the author of The Earthmovers is how it seamlessly ties together occultism (hermeticism), scientism, and protestantism, proving this triumvirate to be a synthesis of heresy, and therefore the germ of the "new theology" of 20th century neo-modernism. E. Michael Jones, in his book entitled The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit, ties into this uber-revolution its other characteristic quality, that of sanhedrinism. He shows definitively that the protestant revolution is "of the Jews." Thus we see back five centuries ago what we see even in our own midst - the mark, the stamp, the calling card of ʝʊdɛօ-masonry.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #189 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:48:24 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: In April 1543, the first edition of De Revolutionibus arrived from Nuremberg. Copernicus, who had suffered a stroke two years earlier, had his copy placed on his bed. He died some hours later without comment. Rheticus however, opened it up only to find a preface, not written up by Copernicus or himself entitled, To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work, otherwise known as the Ad lectorem introduction.

And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation . . . Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.

Rheticus was furious at this introduction, placing a large X across it on every copy he could get his hands on. He must have known Copernicus, like himself, really did believe heliocentrism was a reality and would have wanted it presented as such. Angry too was the Catholic Bishop Giese, personal friend of Copernicus, who described the preface as a deception, ‘letting someone else diminish faith in the treaties.’ It was learned much later, the preface that saved De revolutionibus from the index in 1543 was not written and included by the publisher Petreius, but by a friend of Rheticus and Copernicus, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), a one time priest who ‘became Nuremberg’s first Protestant minister,’ a man who ‘cultivated a considerable international network that included the soon-to-be Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.106.)

Osiander knew that to present heliocentrism as a reality would cause unnecessary trouble with natural philosophers and theologians. We read that Osiander once wrote to Copernicus advising him that like others before him, he was only saving appearances, and not to present his work as any more than a working hypothesis. He then sent Rheticus a suitable preface, imploring him to include it in the book to avoid trouble and to give De revolutionibus time to spread its influence. Rheticus was aware of these problems and that the traditional interpretation of the Bible was geocentric. Like Galileo after him however, he believed he could argue his way out of the dilemma. This was after all, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and new interpretations of the Scriptures were necessary for them. Rheticus simply argued that the Bible was not a science book, not a book that teaches us how the heavens behave, but a book that teaches us spiritual things, how to get to heaven. We see then that the heliocentric hermeneutics and exegetics introduced, even into the Catholic Church, had their origins in Luther’s Protestant doctrine.

As it turned out, due to a set of circuмstances, Osiander was given the task to supervise the final stage for the printing of De revolutionibus. Obviously he saw no such precautionary preface had been included so he wrote one up and inserted it before printing began. Whether he did so sincerely or as a ploy to ensure the books safe passage through the theologians, only he and God knows.

Historians now agree that Osiander did write the first part of the preface of Copernicus’s book, a ‘hypothesis’ he knew the Church would permit in the interest of science. Kepler, in his Opera Omnia held Osiander entirely responsible. History however, was not kind to Osiander for his strategy. Andrew White for instance, in his book A History, poured ridicule on Osiander’s tactics:

He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus for his novel ideas, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth’s movement not as a fact but as a hypothesis . . . Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific truths – a truth no less ennobling to religion than to science - forced, in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl. (Andrew White: A History, p.123.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #190 on:** February 22, 2014, 07:17:01 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Karl von Gebler in his book called Osiander’s foreword ‘an unprincipled introduction - Osiander’s sacrilegious act.’ (Karl von Gebler: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, 1878, p.15.) But Osiander knew what he was doing. As far as he was concerned had he not written such a foreword the Copernican Revolution would have had a different history.

In De revolutionibus, immediately after Osiander’s crucial disclaimer came Copernicus’s own ‘Preface and dedication to Pope Paul III.’ This dedication to the Pope was Copernicus’s way to try to prevent his book being condemned by theologians. It includes the following:

I can reckon easily enough, Holy Father, that as soon as certain people learn that in these books of mine, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the world I attribute certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will immediately shout to have me and my opinion hooted off the stage.

But more interesting is that in it Copernicus tells of the encouragement he got from a list of his ‘friends’ like so:

[friends who] changed my course in spite of my long-continued hesitation and even resistance. First was Nicholas Schonberg, Cardinal of Capua; next to him was my devoted friend Tiedman Giese, Bishop of Culm. Not a few other learned and distinguished men demanded the same thing of me. Accordingly I was led by such persuasion and by that hope finally to permit my friends to undertake the publication of this work.

Notice not one of his Lutheran friends is named, only the two Catholic bishops. Nor does Copernicus name the Protestant publishers who, at the time, were also about the business of distributing other anti-Catholic ideas throughout Europe. Moreover, given the part Rheticus had in persuading Copernicus to complete his shelved manuscript; one would have expected to find his efforts being acknowledged also. But Rheticus, whose own books had all been placed on the Roman Index within five years, is not mentioned. Copernicus it seems wanted to keep his Lutheran helpers a big secret.

With Osiander’s preface, Copernicus’s dedication to Pope Paul III, and no mention of the Protestant input to De revolutionibus, it is no wonder the book was accepted in Rome on face value, its contents read as no more than a mathematical ‘hypothesis,’ a mechanism to work out the movements of the sky and no more than that.

Now compare the input of Protestants into Copernicus’s success, with the denial of it throughout history. Today Protestantism is presented as having been every bit opposed to Copernicanism at the time as Catholics were. Luther, Melanchthon, and, according to Andrew White, Calvin, ‘condemned’ Copernicanism. Luther, quotes White, went on to call Copernicus ‘an upstart astrologer, who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.’ Melanchthon, in his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six years later, said: ‘The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eight sphere nor the sun revolves…Now it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious….’

The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little skilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free use of the explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed. (A.D. White: A History, p.158. A similar retreat was offered by Pope John Paul II in 1992.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #191 on:** February 23, 2014, 06:13:07 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: As for De revolutionibus itself, it is divided into six books. Such is its complexity and volume of writing and data that it is doubtful anyone ever read it all, let alone tried and tested its data and mechanisms. Truly it is a book compiled by dedicated mathematicians, containing thousands and thousands of words, opinions, numbers, equations and geometrical illustrations. But now let us take a glimpse inside it in order to see how well Copernicus knew the real problems in discerning the true universe:

5. Does the earth have a circular movement?

. . . Although there are so many authorities for saying that the Earth rests in the centre of the world that people think the contrary supposition inopinable and even ridiculous: if however we consider the thing attentively, we will see that the question has not yet been decided and accordingly is by no means to be scorned. For every apparent change in place occurs on account of the movement either of the thing seen or of the spectator, or on account of the necessarily unequal movement of both. For no movement is perceptible relatively to things moved equally in the same direction – I mean relatively to the thing seen and the spectator. Now it is from the earth that the celestial circuit is beheld and presented to our sight. Therefore, if some movement should belong to the Earth it will appear, in the parts of the universe that are outside, as the same movement but in the opposite direction, as though the thing outside were passing over. And the daily revolution in especial is such a movement. For the daily revolution appears to carry the whole universe along, with the exception of the Earth and the things around it. And if you admit the heavens possess none of this movement but that the earth turns from west to east, you will find – if you make a serious examination – that as regards the apparent rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars the case is so. And since it is the heavens that contain and embrace all things as the place common to the universe, it will not be clear at once why movement should not be assigned to the contained rather that to the container, to the thing placed rather than to the thing providing the place.

As a matter of fact the Pythagorean Herakleides and Ekphantus were of this opinion and so was Hicetas the Syracusan Cicero; they made the Earth to revolve at the centre of the world . . .

And so [also] it would not be very surprising if someone attributed some other movement to the earth in addition to the daily revolution. As a matter of fact, Philolaus the Pythagorian is supposed to have held that the Earth moved in a circle and wandered in some other movements and was one of the planets. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 5.

Thus we see Copernicus was well aware of relative movement that prevails throughout the universe and that this same relativity allowed for the possibility of a heliocentric universe rather than a geocentric one. Next he addresses the old argument that if the earth moves and revolves this would mean that objects on it would be thrown into violent motion:

But if someone opines that the earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy [and Aristotle] had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.

There immediately follows a most interesting and thought-provoking paragraph in which Copernicus asked some fascinating questions.

But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else. But they say beyond the heavens there isn’t any body or place or void or anything at all; and accordingly it is not possible for the heavens to move outwards; in that case it is rather surprising that something can be held together by nothing. But if the heavens were infinite and were finite only with respect to a hollow space inside, then it will be said with more truth that there is nothing outside the heavens, since anything that occupied any space would be in them; but the heavens will remain immobile. For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.

Correct, if the universe spins, as it does in the geocentric order, it cannot be infinite because an infinite universe cannot rotate every day. Moreover, if the heavens spin, Copernicus reasoned, they should be in a state of perpetual expansion. And what does modern cosmology accept: that the universe is expanding.

To Copernicus then, not Hubble or Lemaître, should go the credit for the first expanding universe theory, but ironically a geocentric one, one that eliminates the problem for modern cosmology, the necessity for ‘missing’ dark matter and dark energy to prevent internal implosion and explain cosmic expansion in keeping with Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of universal gravity.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #192 on:** February 23, 2014, 06:27:35 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Given that Copernicus advanced astronomy, not one star or one moon, and nothing in his book, went anywhere near advancing the case for a fixed sun and moving earth reality, how did his model take hold in science as a truth, as the true scientific order of the world we live in?

Heliocentric Action: A 24-hour spinning earth orbiting the sun every 356.25 days or so.

The Earthmovers used a little psychology; they hijacked Occam’s razor [William of Occam (1288-1347), Franciscan friar, scholastic and geocentricist] for their purpose: ["Occam's Razor" states] the principal that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity, or in other words, all things being equal, the simpler idea tends to be the truer one. To illustrate this, a couple of quotes will suffice.

The Copernican hypothesis of a stationary sun considerably simplified astronomical theory and calculations, but otherwise it was not impressively accurate . . . He had found a simpler mathematical account of the motions of the heavens and hence one that must be preferred; for Copernicus, like all scientists of the Renaissance, was convinced that “Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.” (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, p.72.)

Copernicus’s work . . . put the sun, not the earth, at the centre of the solar system. In one stroke Copernicus replaced the extremely complex, earth-cantered system with one of elegant simplicity. (Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower, April 2005, numbers published 26,439,000.)

So, like most Copernicans before them, the Jehovah’s Witnesses also see God using the simplest way to operate the movements of His universe, as though any system could be simpler or more difficult to God. But besides this crucial point, we could ask what do the Copernicans mean when they say this sun-centred system was/is ‘simpler’ than the ‘extremely complex’ earth-centred idea, theory or system? Here then are the two systems:

Copernican System

Tycho's Geocentric System

In the images above, the picture on the top is Copernicus's heliocentris. The bottom is Tycho's geocentric. We are talking SIMPLICITY. Man does not see a heliocentric system. Man sees a geocentric one. The heliocentric picture is a mind illustration. The illustration on the right is what we see.

So, which system is really the ‘simplest, and simplest in what way?’ Well there are many answers to this, for we have now entered the mind-game that we call magic in this book. Is the heliocentric order simplest to our eyes, our vision of the sky throughout time? Certainly not, for the system on the left works like that only if man lived on the sun.

[The ‘simplicity’ of Copernicus’s scheme is usually presented in the following way: Of course the motion of a planet around the sun is not strictly circular, and so Copernicus added epicycles to his [circles]. Nevertheless, he was able to reduce the number of circles required from seventy-seven to thirty-four to “explain the whole dance of the planets.” (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p.71). Koestler however, shows that there is always something fishy about the supposed simplicity of Copernicus’s model. In his Commentariolus, written before De revolutionibus, Copernicus had indeed stated his system required only thirty-four circles compared with Ptolemy’s eighty. But a proper count, according to Koestler, shows Copernicus needed forty-eight epicycles to Ptolemy’s forty. Elsewhere we read Copernicus needed ‘46 circles to explain the ballet of the planets compared to 27 for Ptolemy.’ Was Copernicus’s model ‘simpler’ then? Of course not, and to prove this I suggest you do the counting yourself.]

By ["simpler functional system"] we mean its usefulness for the astronomical needs of man as opposed to its employment for ideological purposes. Koestler, in his Sleepwalkers, shows us that Copernicus’s model was anything but simple. One of the reasons for this is that, because Copernicus used circular orbits, he had to use deferents, epicycles and eccentrics to plot movements, just like Ptolemy. As for accuracy, well his method is admitted by all to have been inaccurate, falling short by as much as 10 degrees (the moon takes up one-half a degree in the sky) in predicting angular positions of planets. So here again we find the assertion of simplicity for the Copernican system as he proposed it to be a fraudulent claim.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #193 on:** February 23, 2014, 06:32:16 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now move on to Copernicus’s system as a simpler way to predict eclipses, conjunctions or whatever. Most folk fully accept without investigating that the heliocentric system is the one used for all astronomical predictions and calculations. Well most folk are wrong then. When it comes to working out eclipses etc., according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is the geocentric reality mathematics that are used. But watch how they again play mind-games when admitting this:

For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre . . . - - - Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).

"But what about modern space flight," we hear some ask. "These days, don’t the newspapers and journals show us drawings of rockets blasting off from an earth supposedly rotating and orbiting the sun, so the maths must be heliocentric?" In fact heliocentric or geocentric mathematics can be used to achieve the same purpose, depending on which allows the more convenient calculations. The heliocentric mathematics is only used sparingly if at all. A full use of heliocentric maths is many times more complicated than if calculated from a fixed earth. In a heliocentric circus one would have to take account of the earth moving at 67,000mps (faster than the speed of a bullet) relative to the target planet itself moving at thousands of miles per second.

Let us now read what a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 had to say about which system is simpler:

Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England

Sir . . . One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival [and success] depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.

Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.

Martin Gwynne completes our education:

Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma,” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness, I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation.

(1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary, while the outer revolves about it.

(2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet.

(3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees.

(4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile. (N. M. Gwynne, Galileo Versus The Geocentric Theory of the Universe, Britons Library, 1985, p.70.)

Now let us bring things up to date. The heliocentric proposal on offer now is the Copernican/Newtonian/Einsteinian model whereas the geocentric system is the Tychonic/Cassinian model. Were we to point out the complexities of the updated heliocentric model here, something we will describe later in our chapters on Newton, Cassini, and Einstein, the idea that their heliocentric tool is ‘simpler’ than the geocentric reality would be quickly seen for what it is; unmitigated nonsense.

JPaul · « **Reply #194 on:** February 23, 2014, 08:10:32 PM »

"For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven.

Thy truth unto all generations: thou hast founded the earth, and it continueth.

By thy ordinance the day goeth on: for all things serve thee."