1) WE KNOW it is a fact, and can prove it. He believed it was a fact, stated it WAS a fact, but couldn't PROVE it. You need to take off the 21st century filter--he was saying that nearly 1500 years of accepted (and "proven") scientific and religious dogma was WRONG, something NO ONE should take lightly, and certainly not something one should approach without PROOF. Hence his "specious" claim--he said he had proof, but had none.
2) He was never threatened with death, so that is bogus. The Church wasn't the only one "forcing its theology," Protestants did, and scientists rejected Galileo's assertions. So the Church was not alone in it. It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint, he went on trial (religious, not secular) for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all. They said he can talk about it, but not in a way that says it is CERTAIN, because it WASN'T certain at that time. It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation.
3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth.
4) Sheesh, do some research on the subject before you regurgitate anti-Catholic B.S. His "recantation" was largely a formality. It did not damage his reputation or work in any way. He published his best scientific work AFTER he was put under house arrest.
5) No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened. He was not threatened with execution. Copernicus published the book and THEN died; and his book took DECADES of work (which, if the Church was as much an enemy as you claim, they would have stopped him; they certainly wouldn't have asked his help in reconfiguring the ecclesiastical calendar...). Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong:
"When Copernicus book was published, it contained an unauthorized preface by the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote his heliocentric account of the earth's movement as a mere mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that contained truth or even probability. This was apparently written to soften any religious backlash against the book, but there is no evidence that Copernicus considered the heliocentric model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from reality. Copernicus' hypothesis contradicted the account of the sun's movement around the earth that appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13)."
Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus.
6) You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth. Read "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," for starters. Follow that up with "Christianity of Trial." Enlighten yourself ("Enlightenment," Kant said, "is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.")
7) "it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree."
It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day...
Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ.
Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?