[Rounder]

I do not consider the IFES wiki authoritative in any way. Do you?

Good Lord, NO I do not, LOL!  I only brought it up to illustrate that on the question of 'other round things' even the flat earth wiki draws the line before suggesting flat planets.

[Integrity82]

Whoa. This got way smarter than my original question.
Perhaps I shall just watch...

Thanks again for all the replys.
Globers and flatheads.

[Setec Astronomy]

Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos

Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto

Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus

Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon

Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton

Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)


Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.

Very few of those are even observable moons, and none of them have a surface that can be seen with any optical telescope.

It's very difficult to discuss thing with one who is still under mind control and believing every Royal/Naval/NASA/Freemason factoid about things that are 100% unobservable.

Let's try to chip away at that a little bit. Are you aware that the "lunar laser ranging" experiment is a complete fraud/lie/hoax? This can be proven quite definitively, but I'm curious to see how much folks will double down before seeing the proof (which is actually quite obvious, but everyone misses it thanks to misdirection).

[Roundabout]

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos

Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto

Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus

Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon

Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton

Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)


Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.

Very few of those are even observable moons, and none of them have a surface that can be seen with any optical telescope.

Iapetus one of Saturn's moon are observed to be brighter when it's on the western side of Saturn (viewed from Earth) and very very dim when it's on the eastern side of Saturn, this could only mean that Iapetus is tidally locked and have a dark and bright hemisphere.
The surface feature of Galilean moons are visible in observatory telescopes.

Such a view could also suggest it is concave, or even a semisphere dome being observed. I'm not claiming it is, but the view doesn't preclude those explanations - as I said, you only ever see one side (certainly a marvellously impossible coincidence that an orbiting globe would rotate in such a way.

We never said it was coincidence, yet you reject the explanation we give.

[Integrity82]

Aren't the free masons just a rich boys club who paddle each other's arses and wear creepy cloaks?

[Setec Astronomy]

Aren't the free masons just a rich boys club who paddle each other's arses and wear creepy cloaks?

Along with masturbating in coffins, taking Luciferian oaths, and other monkeyshines.

Isaac Newton was a mason. As was Copernicus. Also police chiefs, military officers, and every NASA astroNot.

[Integrity82]

Yeah setec astronomy. I've read and heard that before. Never about astronauts or police chiefs.
But I assume positions of power and influence are positions that free masons would like to place people.
That's assuming they are a shadowy clan with a worldwide historic plan to rule the world.
It's a hard one for me to grasp.
I definitely think there is something weird and not quite right with free masons. I don't know anything more than reading things online about them. And anyone could tell me the bush family for instance are free masons and I can't prove they aren't.
Is it publicly known who's part of it?
And what do the free masons claim they are for? Or why people join them?
A rich boys club to help each other keep positions of power and keep their lineage elite? Or is it way more sinister? If that in itself isn't sinister enough.

If you e ever known anyone very wealthy, then from my experience you would know they are not apethetic people. I've got pretty well off people in my family and they definitely use and abuse.
So the top wealthy families in the world and throughout history. Of course some very shady shit went down and continues.

This is a good point as this conspiracy "I think" grabs a lot of people (who are open to many conspiracy a like free masons) and leads them into the idea for a flat earth cover up. Would that be correct?

[Setec Astronomy]

That's assuming they are a shadowy clan with a worldwide historic plan to rule the world.

Freemasonry is only a tool (one of many such fraternal organizations) to get smart and influential people controllable and keep them "on the right side".


As for the globe conspiracy - we are all inundated with it every day. If you watch TV at all (not recommended) you'll see globes shown all the time, if you notice them. Children are presented with globes in school long before they have any critical reasoning abilities. Any flat maps are always Mercator-type projections and never the northern azimuthal equidistant.

One must at least wonder why it is so depserately important to get all people everywhere to regard their world as a globe. For if were simply the truth, people could be introduced to any flat earth ideas first, then gradually shown more advanced proofs. Instead they are always only shown the round idea first, and the flat idea is never given more than a cursory glance - but only when it is known that the people have completely attached themselves to the globe idea.

[Integrity82]

Do they enlist or do you join?
or is it just if your father is in you are in?
Or elite schools make you join?
Can I join?
Do they even have free masons in Australia?
Is it just a male club or are there females too. Seems kind of sexist and weird if it's just old creepy rich men and lots of young (easily influenced) boys...

[Setec Astronomy]

Do they enlist or do you join?
or is it just if your father is in you are in?
Or elite schools make you join?
Can I join?
Do they even have free masons in Australia?
Is it just a male club or are there females too. Seems kind of sexist and weird if it's just old creepy rich men and lots of young (easily influenced) boys...

Joining is by invitation only (actually they have to vote to let someone in, who must avoid being "blackballed"), and it's a men-only club. Lower degrees don't have to come from a long family line of freemasons, but the higher-ups always do.
For women they have something called the Order of the Eastern Star.

[Roundy]

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.

They most certainly have.  If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results.  The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.

[thatsnice]

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.

They most certainly have.  If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results.  The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.

This would be true aside from the fact that any observer with a telescope can observe the rotation of Mars over the course of a month. Mars rotation takes slightly longer than a day and over long periods, a noticeable change on the surface relative to us is visible. Also, the moon cannot be flat, as the shadows cast on the surface of the moon are parabolic. It is impossible to cast a curved shadow on a flat surface, try it. So that is also implausible unless accounting for:

1: Some third, hyperbolic-shaped stellar object that blocks light from the sun

2: Extreme amounts of light distortion

3: The fact that the argument makes no sense.

Sorry if that was rude, I'm just saying.

[Rounder]

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

It sounds like you are referring to photos taken at the Martian surface by Viking, Spirit, and Opportunity, for example?  If so this is an acknowledgement of the reality of spaceflight, which is unexpected (I guess you DID bracket that statement with a pair of 'if' statements, which I included, but still...).  It also serves to illustrate what we round earth folks have been saying all along: from the ground, from the perspective of a puny human and his tiny machines, the shape of a vast, round, planet-sized object APPEARS to be flat, even though it is NOT flat.  From the great distance of earth, look at the moon with the naked eye and look at Mars with a telescope: they are both round.  Look at them from ground level: they appear to be flat.

If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results.  The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.

I put it to you that the 'optical illusion' you speak of has nothing to do with EA, but instead is caused by the enormous difference in scale from the tiny human/machine sized object to the vast moon/mars sized object.  And having shown that the round-from-a-distance moon and Mars appear flat-from-the-surface, perhaps one can conclude that the same flat-from-the-surface appearance earth does not eliminate the possibility that it too is round-from-a-distance?  (I won't go so far as to claim proof, merely that the possibility is not eliminated)

[İntikam]

there is no planets except Earth. The others are dead stars that did'nt fall down to the earth.

[andruszkow]

there is no planets

There, fixed that for you. Unless you think the earth is a globe, of course.