[Koos]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

[ILikeLickingFatEarth]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

Some people - such as Socrates, Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ricky Ponting - have put out interesting theories about the other planets not existing at all. However, this is all up for debate until the day we manage to actually (don't believe all those pesky conspiracy theories out there) send a man into outer space. Thank you for your time.

[juner]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

[Christer Fuglesang]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

Of course they exist! We've even had several successful landings on Mars. And no; they're not 'flat'. Pleeeease do your research! Where do you get your information from? Youtube?

[LuggerSailor]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

And the wiki contains such prime examples of hand-wavery;

Rotundity

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet.

Size and Magnitude

Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.

Solar System

Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.

Retrograde Motion

Q. Why do planets retrograde in the sky?

A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.
The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time.

[juner]

Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?

Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

And the wiki contains such prime examples of hand-wavery;

Rotundity

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet.

Size and Magnitude

Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.

Solar System

Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.

Retrograde Motion

Q. Why do planets retrograde in the sky?

A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.
The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time.

Unless you have a question, or something to add to the discussion, I'll ask you to refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Pasting info from the wiki with a prefacing snide remark adds nothing. Consider this a warning.

[Charming Anarchist]

I do not believe planets exist.  They are reflexions of light. 

And if so, are they also flat?

There are allegations that the 1st few telescopic photographs of Mars looked like the surface of the moon.  I can not find a web source for that claim yet.  Try to search it yourself. 

[mbecks]

I do not believe planets exist.  They are reflexions of light. 

And if so, are they also flat?

There are allegations that the 1st few telescopic photographs of Mars looked like the surface of the moon.  I can not find a web source for that claim yet.  Try to search it yourself.

how do you feel about the moon?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Yes they are, and we know they are spherical because they rotates, they also show phases and change in angular size.
See phases of Venus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus

[Charming Anarchist]

how do you feel about the moon?

The moon is obviously a reflection of the grand surface of the earth reflecting up upon the reflective surface of the firmament. 
That is why we see the same surface and that is why it is a perfect circle. 

We are probably a tiny point inside one of the craters. 

[Roundy]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

Nope it's mountainous and cratered. The link also show photos from Martian rovers by NASA, which would be impossible if both Earth and Mars is flat.

[Roundy]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

Nope it's mountainous and cratered.

Weirdly pedantic, don't you think?   

The link also show photos from Martian rovers by NASA, which would be impossible if both Earth and Mars is flat.

Why?

[M-Bone99]

I would assume the other planets are round.

[Icaruss]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.

[sandokhan]

The angular size of Venus is another topic of interest, mentioned by the RE, that cannot be answered in the context of the official faq.

As usual, I have to come to the rescue.

THE EXTENDED SCHROETER EFFECT: THE EVENING STAR AND THE MORNING STAR ARE TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS


Official astronomy science:

In 1793, J. H. Schroeter reported, for the first time, observing the southern limb of the planet Venus remaining concave up to about eight days before or after its conjunction with the Sun, according to his best estimate.

In general, the time difference between the time of theoretical dichotomy and the time of observed dichotomy is about four to six days.

The various theoretical interpretations of this long-standing anomaly, whether they be atmospheric, kinematic or optical, have not been able to explain the basic Schroeter effect: they cannot explain in any way the extended Schroeter effect.


Nonetheless, the phase anomaly of Venus is much wider than the Schroeter's effect, and can produce differences of ± 0.10 for all phases from near 0.1 Phase to 0.9 Phase; and not just at 0.5 Phase alone.


Eastern elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000080.000.html

Western elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000081.000.html


Notable differences observed:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000082.000.html



The superb analysis of the Schroeter effect in the context of geocentrism:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726101423/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Schroter.htm (it includes a different proof of the fact that the Schroeter effect can only take place within the geocentric context, many other quotes concerning the Schroeter effect)


http://www.issibern.ch/teams/venusso2/multimedia/pdf/Krasnopolsky_06.pdf (unsolved problems for the atmosphere of Venus)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969JBAA...79..286J (the phase anomalies of Mercury)


The Evening Star and Morning Star are two different planets:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

On the angular size of Mars:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/The-resolution-of-Mars,4


"In fact, the only thing that Galileo's findings showed was that the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system were much larger than had previously been suspected.

As for the Tychonic model of Geocentrism, if one uses the same elliptical orbits of Kepler, the result is that two epicycles in the Ptolemaic system will translate into one ellipse, per planet, in the Tychonic system. Thus, around the sun, Mercury and Venus would each have a perigee and an apogee, and each locus of points along that polarity would show the respective phases of Mercury and Venus, as viewed from earth." (R. Sungenis) - (this is how, on a flat earth, we correctly explain the phases of Venus photograph: http://s23.postimg.org/sfm8mp8p7/venus_phase1.jpg )

[Roundy]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.

Can you prove that?  Even the staunchest fundamentalist FEer is wise enough to know that they can't really claim the images are "clearly doctored" (beyond some occasional and openly acknowledged cosmetic clean-up) because they know that they aren't "clearly" doctored, since such doctoring has never been proven; rather, the argument is made that images in general *can* be doctored, therefore the evidence is unreliable.

But I think the notion of the Conspiracy is too unwieldy to realistically exist, so it's more prudent to take it as incorrect (at this point, saying NASA has never been to space is a lot like saying that Australia doesn't exist; there are too many people who can verify it for it to be fake).  That's why I thought a reformation of the old ideas was necessary, since one way or the other the Earth is clearly and verifiably flat.  Fortunately, the images that NASA provides from the surface of other planets actually shows that they are flat, suggesting that flatness is the norm for large bodies like planets and likely even the sun.

[Icaruss]

I believe the other planets are probably flat.  We have photographic evidence that Mars is flat.

These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.

Can you prove that?  Even the staunchest fundamentalist FEer is wise enough to know that they can't really claim the images are "clearly doctored" (beyond some occasional and openly acknowledged cosmetic clean-up) because they know that they aren't "clearly" doctored, since such doctoring has never been proven; rather, the argument is made that images in general *can* be doctored, therefore the evidence is unreliable.

But I think the notion of the Conspiracy is too unwieldy to realistically exist, so it's more prudent to take it as incorrect (at this point, saying NASA has never been to space is a lot like saying that Australia doesn't exist; there are too many people who can verify it for it to be fake).  That's why I thought a reformation of the old ideas was necessary, since one way or the other the Earth is clearly and verifiably flat.  Fortunately, the images that NASA provides from the surface of other planets actually shows that they are flat, suggesting that flatness is the norm for large bodies like planets and likely even the sun.

So where are the pictures of our planet from space? Why do they give us pictures of Mars but not Earth? The images being doctored are the logical conclusion of a lack of pictures of our own Earth. It's easier when in space to turn around and snap a photo than from the surface of Mars. In the case of a conspiracy, if you think the space conspiracy is to unwieldy to realistically exist you are also claiming the same for FE theory since they go hand in hand. From space the evidence would be indisputable.

[Roundy]

So where are the pictures of our planet from space?

Can't you use google?  They are not hard to find.

[Icaruss]

So where are the pictures of our planet from space?

Can't you use google?  They are not hard to find.

So you are a round worlder, showing pictures of the earth from different angles would be evidence of a round world and you have bought it. Why are you here?