But if you look even closer, absolutely none of these "inconsistencies" really are inconsistent. Things can be counter-intuitive, or hard to understand, like the apparent "Moon tilt illusion" or the n-body problem.
Those subjects are more about things which do not work, rather than things which are inconsistent, and off topic to what I am referencing. However, from what I've seen of you on that subject are claims that the three body problem works to describe celestial systems, citing yourself as your source, in contradiction to NOVA and physicists who directly state that the problem does not work. You also claim that the Moon Tilt Illusion works without really addressing any of the criticisms against it.
In order to contradict those physicists on the three body problem, you would need to construct your own collection of sources by physicists, showing that the celestial systems can be fully described with the three body problem. It should be possible to find direct statements and abundant sources if there are actually working solutions. The bar to contradict the three body problem page is set much higher than your personal objection when it cites a dozen physicists who say the same thing.
Your objection is basically "yeah, I know he said that it doesn't work and only symmetrical configurations exist, and approximations are needed.... but then in this other paragraph he says the orbital calculations are accurate" and when we look at that further in a thread, the source really saying the approximations are accurate; the approximations which treat a three body problem as a series of two body problems and ignores the concept of three bodies. You provide a continual series of inferences stemming from your own opinion, rather than providing the opinions of physicists who state directly that the three body problem works to simulate our celestial systems.
As far as inconsistency goes:
Foucault Pendulum
Michelson Gale Pearson Experiment
Coriolis Effect Experiments
Cavendish Experiment
Sinking Ship Effect
Contradictions between Michelson-Morley and Sagnac/Wang experiments
All of these are documented as inconsistent in the FE Wiki. I have yet to see evidence that those things are, in fact, consistent.