The Flat Earth Controversy
A Biblical World View And One Man's Quest For Truth
© 2015 by Rob Skiba



Today is July 7, 2016. After more than a year of dedicated research, all I can say is our Earth and it's nature and place in the cosmos is not what we have been told it is by modern science, or indeed by the Church either. The Bible has been used by the Church (and its associated Creationists) to try and justify the spinning, heliocentric globe of modern science by many (including myself) over the past few hundred years, but the one thing I can now say without reservation is that I am quite certain we can no longer use it for such purposes. Indeed, that is probably the only thing I am certain about at this point. The Bible absolutely, positively, no questions asked, is a Flat Earth book from Genesis to Revelation and any academic scholar who is being truly honest with the text will agree - as those of Logos Bible Software did:

Clearly, the Bible, and indeed the testimonies and textual records of the entire Ancient Near East (and pretty much the rest of the world as well) are directly at odds with modern science. Considering what the ancients were capable of doing (e.g. building megalithic structures and doing things we, to this day, still cannot figure out), I think it is a mistake to just dismiss them as invalid sources for truth. For these reasons and more, I believe the subject is very important to be discussing. And ever since I have been doing so, I have received testimony after testimony (on almost a daily basis) of people who are coming into a closer relationship with YHWH and who - many for the first time - are reading their Bible's more:

When I first began this journey, Christians started posting Isaiah 40:22 all over the place. But as I said in the above video, the "circle" of Isaiah 40:22 means circle, not "ball." Isaiah clearly knew the difference (see Isaiah 22:18). It's a shame people in the 21st Century do not.

Thus, to continue to try and make the Bible agree with modern science is to be totally dishonest with the text. I can no longer do that. It says what it says. The question is what are we going to do about it?

As for me, I have finally begun to be brutally honest with the text and with myself. As a result, I have really struggled with this subject concerning the Flat Earth. I've built my entire life and ministry on claiming the Bible as my source for truth and regularly proclaiming that we should take it literally. The problem is, if you do take it literally, you can no longer hold onto the spinning, heliocentric globe. Yet, that's all we've ever known. It's all we've ever been taught. It's all we ever see. From the moment we were capable of learning anything, we've been influenced by the globe model. It is literally everywhere! But how many of us have ever questioned what we were taught? As of this writing, I am 47 years old and I can tell you, prior to a little over a year ago, I never once questioned it. Yet, in the Bible, the Apostle Paul told us we are to...

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Hence, the creation of this website. I created it specifically to "test the globe" in order to prove - one way or another - the nature of our world, from the Scriptures and from practical observation. Does the real world actually reflect the descriptions given in the Bible? I gave it my best shot to find out. Aside from a few breaks due to health problems and significant family drama, I spent the better part of the past year doing little else but this research. In fact, for six full months,I lived and breathed it from the time I woke up, until I went to bed. It's fair to say, I was obsessed with it (and still am) and - at least in terms of our ministry and personal relationships - it has cost us quite a bit. But I promised myself, I would give a full 6 months of my time to investigate this subject, and that I did (from April 15 - October 15, 2015). Then from October until today (7/7/16), I began to work on other projects again, but this subject just would not leave me alone. The more I resisted, the more was presented to me to investigate and - though sometimes reluctantly - that I did within the limited time I had to do so. I had hoped that I would have much more of a solid handle on all of this by now, but I confess I do not. If anything, I have far more questions than I do answers.

Yes, it is true, the globalists do have some great arguments to justify their particular cosmological worldview. But in my opinion, so do the Flat Earthers. Perhaps of the most significance, the latter have the Bible and virtually all of the ancient historical record on their side:

This is perhaps all the more intriguing if Andrew Hoy's model of the Israelite Tabernacle in the wilderness proves to be correct:

Before dismissing the above model too quickly, please take the time to actually "hear the matter" as described by Andrew on this radio interview I did with him (skip ahead to about the half-way mark in the two hour interview) and be sure to check out his website too:

The Flat Earthers also have a lot of terrestrial-based observation, revealing things, which should not be there and/or cannot be true on a ball. Perhaps one of the more compelling examples of this nature is Joshua Nowicki's picture of the Chicago skyline, taken from nearly 60 miles away:

On June 24, 2016, after nearly a year of obsessing over this picture and the whole "it's a mirage" counter-argument, I was finally able to prove (at least to my own satisfaction) that what people are seeing across the lake is the actual city and not a mirage. Here is the video from that trip:

Does the above experiment prove we're on a flat Earth? Perhaps. And I will explain more in a future video, elaborating on the various observations we made on that trip.

Over the course of this past year, I have watched lots and lots of YouTube videos of footage shot from high altitude planes, rockets and weather balloons. If they don't outright support a Flat Earth, they at the very least, prove that visual confirmation of the horizon through camera lenses at any altitude below 161 MILES is inconclusive at best...

People claim they've seen the curvature from civilian airplanes, which don't go above 40,000 ft., yet video footage well above that altitude consistently proves otherwise. So, clearly, we've all just convinced ourselves that we are seeing something that is not there, based on our "programming." I once thought the same way myself, having flown in planes more times than I can count. But now that I am intentionally looking for the curve, I'm finding it is not really there:

The fact that the horizon always rises with the observer is also extremely problematic for ball Earthers:

Sadly, the primary backer for the globalist argument is NASA, or other government sponsored agencies like them, which are anything but trustworthy. I could post many, many examples of why I believe this, but these should suffice for the purposes of this blog entry:

Then there's this - almost as if in response to the recent surge in flat Earth interest, NASA just released over 10,000 images allegedly from the Apollo missions. Obviously, I have not looked at all of them, but I did spend quite a bit of time going through many of them. It is overwhelming... and I would bet it was intended to be. However, when you have proven frauds like the following, is it really necessary to go through all of it? If we really did what they say we did, why fake anything at all?? I mean, as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..." I would extend it to add the following, "Continue to be fooled by pathological liars... and you're an idiot!"

Indeed, there are many problems with the completely absurd Apollo missions, but the biggest one can be summed up in one word: RADIATION. And between the sun's natural radiation cycle (which was at it's peak during the entire alleged moon landing program), the Van Allen belt and the added radiation created by Starfish Prime, it is completely insane to think the flimsy vehicles and thin jumpsuits protected the astronauts!

While I and others have been able to expose a number of NASA photos as fraudulent, there simply is no way any of us have the time to go through all of their photos. Are they all fakes? At this point it is very hard to tell - especially since on several occasions NASA has been caught "fixing" pics that the Internet research community has exposed. So, in essence we are doing them a huge favor in finding the problem images for them. Then, once exposed, they simply clean the pics up in Photoshop and re-upload and claim the original debunkers to be "crazy, conspiracy theory, nut jobs" and worse. In fact, I have often wondered if this may be part of the job tasked to those "hackers" and Photoshop experts who have converted an old McDonalds into a film processing lab:

Officially, the above represents the Lunar Orbit Image Recovery Project (or LOIRP). See: But could they also be the ones who were tasked with cleaning up thousands of images for the recent Internet photo dump of 10,000 photos from Apollo? I mean realistically, this is a very believable scenario - especially if you brainwash them with notions of "patriotism" and "doing their duty to protect our nation's reputation and national security" and blah, blah, blah... or perhaps it would be as simple as just paying someone enough money, while under a signed non-disclosure agreement (enforced by threats of life and limb to the person or family member). Of course, I cannot prove any conspiracy at work here. All I can say is it looks rather suspicious to me and such a scenario is not at all an unreasonable possibility. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practice to deceive. If indeed Apollo was faked (as the evidence seems to more than suggest), then lie upon lie would be needed in order to cover up the previous lies... for the sake of our nation's reputation, security and well-being.

Let's just take the sheer volume of alleged photos that were supposedly taken by the astronauts on the moon into careful consideration. There is a great article on the website by the late Jack White about this. His bio on the site reads:

Jack White has a BA in journalism, interests in art and history and a solid career in advertising behind him. Having been a professional photographer for over half a century, Jack White is skilled in all aspects of photography, but his speciality is photo analysis. Indeed, Jack White is an expert on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and has served as photographic consultant to the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during the hearings. White has published two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination and was also a consultant on the Oliver Stone film JFK.

Not unnaturally, White has been following the Apollo 'did they, didn't they' debate for many years. But it was in 2001, following the Fox TV documentary Did we land on the Moon? that he decided to undertake an in-depth investigation into the lunar EVA images, and found literally hundreds of them to be anomalous, considering the conditions under which they were alleged to have been taken. In other words, if the photographs were supposed to have been taken on the lunar surface – they were faked.

The number of pics allegedly taken by the Apollo astronauts during Extra Vehicular Activity on the moon were carefully studied by this photographic analyst for more than three years and when that number was divided by the documented hours and minutes each mission spent doing EVAs on the moon, the obvious conclusion was that it could not have been done. The photo specialist states:

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374 
Apollo 15..........1021 
Apollo 16..........1765 
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes) 
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes) 
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes) 
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes) 
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) 

Mr. White realized they would have had to be taking pictures, literally every few seconds of their stay on the moon in order to have so many in such a short period of time. Of course, they supposedly had a lot of other activity to do while on the moon, so how could they have taken such a fantastic number of pictures? He goes on to break it down by mission:

Apollo photo every 15 seconds
Apollo photo every 27 seconds
Apollo photo every 62 seconds
Apollo photo every 44 seconds
Apollo photo every 29 seconds
Apollo photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts.

See also his page on the many problems with the alleged moon photos (some of which are given for you below):

Every other major achievement of mankind has been replicated - in most cases, almost immediately and with significant improvement over time. After the first motorcar was invented, countless others followed. After the first airplane flight, within a very short period of time we had planes flying all over the world - going faster and faster with each passing decade. Soon after the first computers were made, they became available for mass production and they get better, faster and cheaper by the year. Yet after the U.S. allegedly landed on the moon six times from 1969 to 1972, not only have we not done it again in over 40 years, but neither has anyone else! In 40 years, no replication, no improved faster travel there in back. Really? How does that make any sense to anyone?

The Apollo program took up about 4% of the Federal Budget and the total cost of the project came to about 25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (which would be over $136 billion in today's money). That's a lot of money for crappy pics and no replication nor improvement in travel to the moon since.

Speaking of fake pictures, is it just a coincidence that Adobe Photoshop was invented the same year as the Hubble Space Telescope was allegedly launched? Photoshop was initially created in 1988 by Thomas and John Knoll. Tom wrote the core routines, but his brother John - who interestingly enough worked for George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic as the visual effects supervisor and chief creative officer, having played a major role in the spfx of the Star Wars prequels and many other films - was the one who suggested various additional features and encouraged his brother to bundle them up into a package with a graphical user interface. Then in 1989, John sold the program to Adobe. Adobe's official release of Photoshop was Feb. 19, 1990.

The Hubble Space Telescope was (allegedly) launched into space (aboard the space shuttle Discovery - STS-31) two months later (April 24, 1990) the same year. Or... was it?

What most people don't realize is that imagery attributed to Hubble did not originate as the beautiful photographs we've all seen in print. They originate as data, which a Photoshop guy then takes and turns into imagery. Convenient. But rest assured, you have not seen any actual "pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope." You've seen creative Photoshop artwork. This is even admitted by NASA and the Hubble website:

"Hubble images are made, not born. Images must be woven together from the incoming data from the cameras, cleaned up and given colors that bring out features that eyes would otherwise miss. In this video from HubbleSite, online home of the Hubble Space Telescope, a Hubble-imaged galaxy comes together on the screen at super-fast speed."

OK. Maybe the moon landings were a hoax. Maybe Hubble is not what we've been led to believe. But what about all of the information on sites like the these...

In my research, I have found many such sites. I can't even tell you how many documentaries I've watched not only over the course of my lifetime, but also just in the past year. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I have spent a huge chunk of my life obsessed with NASA, the space program and wanting to be an astronaut myself. In fact, that's why I joined the Army in the first place. So, I've studied a lot about the space program and to be brutally honest, there is a lot of very convincing evidence coming from NASA. Can we simply ignore all of that data? Is it all fakery?

Some suggest that it's just "too big of a conspiracy" if it's all a big lie. But is that true? I can’t say for certain that we are dealing with a conspiracy, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that the world is flat and all the space agencies have been lying to us. If it is a conspiracy, then compartmentalization alone obliterates most of the concerns inherent in that conclusion. As for what’s left over, consider this:

We currently have nearly 7.5 BILLION people in the world (whatever shape it may be). To be more specific, according to the world’s population is currently at 7.382+ billion people. When you take this number into account the number of people involved in the world’s space programs is negligible at best. But it gets even worse when you narrow it down to how many have actually been in space since the 1960s:

According to, if we use the USAF definition of “space” then 551 people have been “in space” thus far. If we use the FAI definition, then only 545 people. Even taking the high number, this still means that ONLY less than 600 out of nearly 7.4 BILLION have ever “been in space.” Let that sink in. Now, let’s break it down...

Gender and Nationality of Astronauts and Cosmonauts

Gender- Nationality - Count

F- American-45
F- British- 1
F- Canadian-2
F- Chinese-2
F- French- 1
F- Italian-1
F- Japanese-2
F- Russian-4
F- South Korean-1

I don’t know how many women there are out of the 7.382 BILLION humans on this earth, but I can imagine at least 59 of them could easily keep a secret. Now, let’s look at the men...

M- Afghan-1
M- American-299
M- Austrian-1
M- Belgian-2
M- Brazilian-1
M- Bulgarian-2
M- Canadian-7
M- Chinese-8
M- Cuban-1
M- Czech-1
M- Danish-1
M- Dutch-2
M- French-8
M- German-11
M- Hungarian-1
M- Indian-1
M- Israeli-1
M- Italian-6
M- Japanese-8
M- Kazakh-3
M- Malaysian-1
M- Mexican-1
M- Mongolian-1
M- Polish-1
M- Romanian-1
M- Russian-110
M- Saudi-1
M- Slovak-1
M- South African-1
M- Spanish-1
M- Swedish-1
M- Swiss-1
M- Syrian-1
M- Ukrainian-4
M- Vietnamese-1

So, out of all the men, we see that most of them came from the United States and Russia (409 men). The United States and Russia are probably the most notorious nations for creating and keeping secrets! LOL! And to suggest they “don’t play well together” is to forget about the Apollo mission that almost immediately followed the last alleged moon mission (Apollo 17) and then all of the subsequent collaboration we’ve had with them in space since the 1970s, right up to the present day.

Geopolitically speaking, what we see on TV is a poorly scripted game show, with bad prompter reading puppets (who are terrible actors) playing out a storyline designed and orchestrated by Luciferians, who are all either related to each other or who are “brothers” through the various secret societies they belong to, each with a goal of establishing the New World Order. Make no mistake, while we may be the “tip of the spear,” the U.S. is certainly not the only nation pushing that agenda. But that’s a topic for another discussion.

The vast majority of “space travelers” either currently have or have had military backgrounds. The military of any nation is actually required by nature to be able to keep secrets in order to have any tactical advantage in warfare. So, anyone with a military service background (especially if they had ever held any secret clearances while in the service) would be a prime candidate for guarding a conspiracy... assuming there is one.

Furthermore, at least on the U.S. side, a lot of these “space traveling” people belong to secret societies (Freemasons being probably the most common). Secret societies... well, keep secrets. That’s what they do. Hello?

So, back to "It's too big of a conspiracy!" argument. If there is a conspiracy at play here, it’s not hard to see how it could easily be pulled off. The only people who would have to be “in on it” would be the people at the very top, who call the shots and approve what the public finally gets to see (this would be a comparatively small number, well below the 500+ who have supposedly gone to space) and those mentioned above. Everyone else would simply be doing their jobs, building stuff and monitoring the data that is fed to them by the aforementioned, questionable few.

When one considers how totally locked down and compartmentalized the Manhattan Project was with over 130,000 people involved and working close together, at a cost of $26 Billion (in modern dollars), spanning 30 sites in the U.S., U.K. and Canada and yet even the Vice President of the United States didn't know about it, never mind the general population of this country or the world for that matter, it is quite easy to see how a conspiracy could be pulled off. If they could do that in the 1940s (along with other similar secret projects), and if they could pull off what was very likely the hoaxes of “landing on the moon” in the 60s and 70s, don’t you think they would have sufficient practice along with significantly more money to play with in order to be able to pull off something even bigger today?

As seen above, the vast majority of “space travelers” allegedly did and are doing so through NASA. There can be no question NASA lies. This has been proven many times about many things. Well, you only get good at what you practice. With as much practice as they’ve had, combined with nearly unlimited resources to play with, I’d say we’d be foolish to think they have suddenly decided to be honest with us. The temptation, motivation and ability to lie is far too great if you ask me.

And for less than 1,000 people to be able keep a secret from 7.382 billion who could never verify anything they say or show us for ourselves, I guess at least for me, the “It’s too big of a conspiracy” argument... well... just falls flat. :)

All I know is NASA has had over 50 years and billions (if not trillions) of dollars to play with, so anything is possible for them. If they wanted to fake something they certainly have the resources to do so. And when people show me footage of someone allegedly floating through the corridors of the International Space Station as "proof" that we've really got astronauts up there doing stuff, I simply show them the making of a movie like Gravity, which was made for a fraction of the yearly budget NASA has. I do this to show that it is at least very possible to fool us:

Gravity was made for $100 million in 2013. That same year, NASA's budget was about $17.7 billion, which was "its lowest level in four years." Oh, boo-hoo...

By way of comparison, there are months when I've been lucky if I could pay the rent on my small two bedroom apartment, my tiny 12 x 14 office space and my car, while still covering all of my other bills in time. I imagine most reading this are probably in about the same boat. So, any of us taking on NASA is worse than a David and Goliath scenario. This is Pee-Wee Herman against a few hundred thousand cedar tree-sized Amorite armies. With the money and resources NASA has, it is certainly plausible that all those missions could be staged and fraudulent. They have definitely had the time and the means to pull it off... but I can't prove that. None of us can and they know it.

I have spent a lot of time on the various NASA websites, looking over the mission logs, transcript data, and photos, as well as listening to audio from the actual missions, and even though my default is set to "conspiracy," and I do not believe we ever actually put a man on the moon, a lot of this apparent "evidence" is still very convincing, and I certainly can not debunk much of it. Yet, oddly enough NASA seems to be debunking themselves lately. With the various videos out concerning the issues project Orion has been having solving the "radiation problems" of the Van Allen Belts (and beyond), it is hard to believe we ever managed to go through those things more than 40 years ago in tin cans and jumpsuits during the Apollo Project.

Still, it really is beginning to seem like NASA is just laughing at us these days. Take this story for instance:

An Astronomy Now article describes the above mission as follows:

"In a special celestial event visible only from the Southern Hemisphere, Pluto passed directly between a distant star and the Earth on the morning of 30 June, New Zealand time. As the dwarf planet and its atmosphere were backlit by the star, this “occultation” caused a faint shadow of Pluto to move across the surface of Earth at more than 53,000 mph, creating a ripe opportunity to perform scientific analysis – if instruments and observers could be in the right place at the right time. The only observatory capable of positioning itself above terrestrial weather and directly in the centre of Pluto’s shadow was NASA’s SOFIA, a Boeing 747SP jetliner modified to carry a 100-inch (2.5-metre) diameter telescope built by NASA’s partner, the German Aerospace Center."

- Source: SOFIA in the right place at the right time for Pluto observations

Seriously? According to NASA, Pluto is nearly 5 billion miles away from us! And the "distant star" is distant to the tune of being many light years away (1 light year = nearly 6 trillion miles). And we are to believe that the light of such a far away star is going to shine behind Pluto and cast its shadow on the Earth (nearly 5 billion miles away), moving 53,000 mph and they were actually able to observe it. Really?

Oh yeah... I forgot... and this all happened at a very convenient time too:

"The occultation happened at a unique time, just two weeks before NASA’s New Horizons mission will make its nearest approach to Pluto on 14 July 2015."

- Source: SOFIA in the right place at the right time for Pluto observations

First of all, shadows get bigger with distance. So, assuming it was even possible to cast a 5 billion mile long shadow, it would have covered the whole Earth. Second of all, there are several much bigger planets closer to us passing in front of stars all the time, so why aren't we constantly seeing planet shadows zipping across the ground all day long? The whole thing is absurd.

And then, when New Horizons finally did (allegedly) get to Pluto, we are shown pics revealing this is what it looks like:

Maybe it's just a coincidence that the odd shape on its southern hemisphere just so happens to look like the Disney character, which has the same name:

Come on! Seriously?? Oh and let's not forget about the latest pics of Jupiter:

On the National Geographic website where this picture was featured, the caption under it read:

This Hubble image shows auroras on Jupiter. These massive structures are created by the planet's huge magnetic field and punishing radiation environment.

Minus the terrible CGI "auroras" atop Jupiter, it should be noted that apparently the clouds never change on the gas giant. The two images below were allegedly taken by NASA - two years apart! Yet, none of Jupiters clouds have changed. Wow.

I suppose that makes sense. Happens on NASA's Jupiter the same way it does here on Earth. That's right Earth's clouds never seem to change in NASA footage either. The following animated gif was just released by NASA allegedly showing a 4 hour timelapse as taken by a satellite 1 million miles away:

Earlier today (7/7/16), I saw an article in the Washington Post talking about NASA's amazing New Horizons probe being retasked (now that it allegedly did its job around Pluto) with heading further out into space to explore "object 2014 MU69."

"It’s official: NASA has extended the New Horizons mission. The spacecraft — which served its original purpose beautifully during last year’s historic flyby of the Pluto system — has been hurtling toward parts-less-known for months. In October of 2015, scientists had New Horizons fire its thrusters to reposition it for a course to 2014 MU69. Now, thanks to funding approval, the team knows it will be around to read the data when New Horizons reaches that new target in 2019."

* * *

"The object 2014 MU69 sits 1 billion miles deeper into this chilly region of space — 1 billion miles closer to the real edge of the solar system. The Kuiper Belt is thought to contain objects that formed billions of years ago during the early days of our solar system. Because these bodies are kept so far from the sun — and, as a result, quite cold — they contain some pristine relics of the oldest building blocks from which our solar system formed.

If all goes as planned, New Horizons will reach the new target on January 1, 2019. That’s going to be quite the New Year’s celebration."

- Source: Washington Post

OK. LOL! This is just plain utterly ridiculous. First of all, again Pluto is (allegedly) 4.7 BILLION miles away from Earth. And yet, we are supposedly receiving beautiful images essentially e-mailed to us by a NASA space probe from such a vast distance? Think about that the next time your e-mail chokes sending a file that's too large or your home wi-fi conks out while watching YouTube and/or when you lose cell phone reception crossing a lake (like I did on Lake Michigan last month).

Now, we are being led to believe this probe (being remotely controlled from Earth) is going to be tasked with flying another billion miles away to check out some other space rock. And that the probe will travel this vast distance in less than 3 years. Presumably, it then will be able to take pics and e-mail them back to us - across nearly 6 BILLLLLLLLIIIOOOONNNN freaking miles - thus providing more evidence of which (of course) is sure to validate their "scientific" notions of the evolution of the cosmos. Blah, blah, blah...

All NASA needs is the approval of a few more billion dollars to extend their various "missions" - which at this point essentially amounts to pushing a few buttons and inputting some commands to remote pieces of equipment and hitting the "send" key.

And here's the latest pile of bull dookie to be dumped on us by the so-called science community:

16-million-year-old planet with three suns discovered

"The far-off planet, located about 320 light years from Earth in the constellation Centaurus, is unlike any other known world, scientists say.

Anyone on the planet — if it harbored life, which scientists don't think is possible — would either experience constant daylight or enjoy triple sunrises and sunsets each day, depending on the season, which last longer than human lifetimes.

The orbit of the 16-million-year-old planet is by far the widest known path within a multi-star system. And, surprisingly, it's quite stable, scientists announced in a study published Thursday in the journal Science."


One "light year" is equal to nearly 6 TRILLION miles folks! So, do you honestly believe they are actually able to see something that is 1.92 QUADRILLION freaking miles away??? Seriously? Why does anyone believe this bs?? And how the heck do they know the planet they are allegedly seeing (1.92 QUADRILLION miles away) is 16 million years old? HOW!??

And by the way, if we have terrestrial-based telescopes such as the European Southern Observatory (used for the above story) that can allegedly see 1.92 QUADRILLION freaking un-be-flipping-lievable miles away, why can't we point one of these things at the six alleged landing sites of Apollo and check out the bases of the lunar landers and their little dune-buggies - or count the stars on the flags they supposedly planted on the moon for that matter?? With such incredibly powerful telescopes, that should be a piece of cake, right? But good luck ever getting these people to do that for you.

Folks, NASA is the most expensive lie factory on Earth. It absolutely shocks and amazes me that anyone listens to a thing they say - much less believes them. And worse - many Christians do too, taking their word over the Word of YHWH. Honestly, I'm to the point now where if any Christian goes off on me again regarding the issues discussed on this site and they claim NASA as any measure of truth for their reason for doing so, I'm going to know they are quite likely either hopelessly deceived, on some serious drugs, or they may just be out of their mind insane. Seriously.

Father forgive us for ever embracing such unbelievable falsehood as truth.

Folks, if you still believe in NASA's crap... the aspartame, fluoride, GMOs and chemtrails have truly done a job on you. You may need to check yourself into a detox center and not come out until you are able to think like a reasonably sane human being again.

In a recent Quest4Truth episode I did with Douglas Hamp, Jon Pounders and John N Patricia Hall, I mentioned that I had looked into "hundreds" of photos from NASA. I was not exaggerating when I made that statement (especially when you realize that video contains 30 frames or images per second... the number may be better stated as thousands). Below is just one of many great on-line resources for you to begin your own journey of doing the same thing I did (you should spend a considerable amount of time on this site):

And there are likewise many video documentaries out on the subject, wherein you can analyze even more photos and videos allegedly shot on/from the moon and by NASA "probes" and such. And when you branch out into the so-called "Mars missions" it only gets worse. The same is true of stuff allegedly coming from the ISS. Indeed, nowadays, there are lots of YouTubers out there doing this same sort of research and posting their findings on-line.

In addition, a really great resource for looking into the various problems and scandals of NASA is the recently published book, The Greatest Lie on Earth by Edward Hendrie. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It's a must have for anyone willing to take a serious look at the claims being made by Flat Earthers and others who have taken a stand against the lies of NASA.

Simply put: The truth is out there if you are willing to look for it. And unfortunately for believers in NASA and the so-called "space program," the evidence is very damning to the official stories. After doing my own research into this stuff, again, I can say with firm conviction that anyone who still believes in NASA as a source for truth, it is quite obvious they haven't spent any significant amount of time looking into the plethora of evidence that proves otherwise.

It also doesn't help that NASA apparently "lost" some of the most important Apollo data: Oops! Sorry Houston, we erased the Apollo 11 tapes. Then, when you actually look into the many astronauts who have been killed over the years, the rabbit hole gets much deeper and darker.

Then there's the fact that the numbers 666 keep showing up in the globe-based information: Newton's apple dropping, gravity epiphany of 1666 and the current tilt of the Earth at 23.4 degrees (90 degree center - 23.4 degree angle = 66.6 degrees off center) for example...

Perhaps that's all just a coincidence? And maybe these are all just coincidences too...

Now, all conspiracy theories and NASA bashing aside, admittedly the globalists do also have some terrestrial-based observations on their side too, which are hard for the Flat Earthers to refute. I've heard the counter-arguments from the Flat Earth community for many of them, and while some are better than others, they don't all resolve the problems. And there are some that seem to defy argument. For example, I have to admit the following video is one of the best non-NASA/space-based "proofs" of the globe I have seen so far:

Of course, I would like to have proof that this was in fact taken from the South Pole. Such an effect could indeed happen (as expected) in the north on the Flat Earth model, but at least as far as I can tell, it can not happen in the south. This is precisely the sort of evidence, which, over the course of this past year, had prevented me from committing to the Flat Earth view completely. Here are some of their other arguments, poking fun at the Flat Earth community:

Granted, some of the typical globalists arguments are easy to refute (as I did very early on in this investigation), but there are many others (mostly related to issues of the southern hemisphere and Antarctica), which have left me with too many questions that I have not been able to answer. If I had the time, I would continue to dig, because if there's anything I have learned during the course of this investigation, it is that there rarely is anything that has only one plausible explanation for it. In fact, as soon as you free yourself from your own cognitive dissonance, it is amazing how much you can learn and discover, because quite often there is more than one way to look at any subject and solve a problem.

Ultimately, at least from this terrestrial-based and resource limited layperson's perspective, I'd have to say, at the bare minimum, we all have much to learn. But if you think you are already 100% convinced of the spinning, heliocentric globe model and feel like there is no need to look into this stuff any further, I would challenge you to read the following four books (especially if you claim to be a Bible-believing Christian). And don't just skim through them either. I mean, really read them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you don't read these (in addition to the Bible), then you really have not even begun to do any research at all.

You can actually read three of the above for free in various digital formats online:

Zetetic Astronomy. Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry Into the True Figure of the Earth:
Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe!

One Hundred Proofs That The Earth is Not a Globe

Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet, Proved From Scripture, Reason and Fact

While you may read these and think you can debunk one or two - or perhaps even a dozen or more - of the things found in these books, I can almost guarantee that you will not be able to debunk everything. Thus, you will, at the very least, challenge yourself and realize that what you thought you knew so well, may not be the case.

You don't know what you don't know. Therefore to comment on that which you know nothing about is foolish.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

With these wise, Holy Spirit inspired words, I would say the above referenced books are a must read for you to "heareth the matter," concerning the material on this website. If you have not at least taken the time to read these books (and preferably gone out to test the claims for yourself), then please don't even bother commenting negatively on anything I may post here regarding the topic about which the Bible and all 4 of the above are in total agreement. Otherwise, you will fall into the following category:

Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.

You may have read all of the same books everyone else has read concerning the shape, size and nature of our world and its place in the cosmos, but if you haven't taken the time to read books, which present the "other side" of the story, then you are guilty of engaging in confirmation bias, which is defined as "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities."

In the beginning of this journey, I often advocated for taking a "flip the board" mentality. By that I meant that, yes, we all know what we've been taught concerning the spinning, heliocentric globe model. But instead of allowing yourself to maintain that bias, why not "flip the chess board" so-to-speak and see if you can argue from the other person's perspective. See if you can look at the topic of discussion from their point-of-view and argue against your own. Whenever I did that (arguing from a Flat Earther's perspective), I found that many of the globalist arguments were not nearly as solid as I would have thought they were. Of course, in order to argue from the other side of the board, it required me to get out of my box of preconceived notions and actually look into things I had never before even considered. Whenever I did that, I was quite amazed at the things I learned. Now, whenever I've thought of a solid piece of evidence that argues in favor of the globe myself or have had such presented to me, I've filed those things away in my head as a "Well, what about this?" question to deal with later. I'd tell myself that I'll have to "flip the board" on that one when I have the time and see what happens. Unfortunately, at this point, time is a luxury I don't really have anymore. So, many of those may have to remain unanswered questions for me.

This much I do know: The test I did on Lake Michigan revealed that Chicago is actually there (as seen from 46 miles away) and it is not a mirage or some other optical illusion. And when considering what curvature should be there, we can't use the standard "8 in. per mile squared" rule, because that curvature formula is based on the Earth's (alleged) circumference of 25,000 miles. But we were looking east-to-west at the 41.5 degree latitude. The circumference of the ball Earth at that latitude is only 18,630.37 miles. Thus if curvature math is based on circumference, the "8 in. per mile squared" formula won't work. We had a much smaller circumference, which meant that the expected curvature from our line of sight (3 feet above the water) to Chicago should have much greater. Indeed, it should have yielded an expected 1,621.64 feet worth of drop due to the curvature of an 18,630 mile circumference, thus completely hiding the 1,450 ft. height of the Willis (Sears) Tower. Although at 40+ miles out, we could only see about the top third of it, we should not have been ale to see any of it.

So, now the globalists have a big "What about this???" question to deal with too. Because even with all of their other "proofs," this one test alone stands against their model big time. So big in fact, that at the very least, they will be forced to admit that even their ball can't be what they thought it was (i.e. a sphere with a circumference of 25,000 miles). The ball will have to be substantially larger. And if this be the case, what does that say about the scale of all of our maps, Google Earth, etc.? And if all of our maps are wrong, what else could be wrong?

While last year (2015) was kind of the beginning of an awakening of sorts, this is the year many are out actually doing tests. Since I did mine, I have been getting e-mail after e-mail of others doing similar tests and taking measurements with lasers and all sorts of equipment. Time and time again, the results are coming back flat and not at all in support of what we have been led to believe.

Funny how there have been tests going back to the early part of the 20th Century (before NASA), which hardly anyone has heard about. Take the case of physicist and explorer Auguste Piccard, the first man to go up into the stratosphere at 52,000 feet:

Then there is the whole issue of geocentricity and the FACT that numerous scientific tests have proven this place is NOT moving and that we are at the center of the Universe:

Galileo Was Wrong:

Arguments for Geocentricity:

The Scriptural Basis For A Geocentric Cosmology:

Fair Education Foundation, Inc. on the Fixed Earth:


If indeed, the Earth is not moving and if indeed it is at the center of the Universe, then once again, the globalists are going to have to rethink everything... especially the mechanics of their favorite trump card: Gravity.

So after all of this, what is my conclusion?

Do I still believe in the globe or have I become a Flat Earther? Well, for most of the past year, I only felt comfortable enough to wear the self-imposed label of a Zetetic Agnostic - by that I meant that I had not yet been fully convinced by either model, so my inquiry continued. Some may have considered that to be a cop-out. It wasn't. I was just being brutally honest. Some thought I was just "too afraid of what men would think of me..." and that's why I wouldn't commit. To that, all I can do is laugh. If I was really so concerned about what others thought, do you really believe I'd have been so vocal and public in my quest for truth regarding this topic - of all topics? Seriously. If I was more worried about what men think than I was about figuring out the true nature of the Earth and its place in the cosmos, I would have kept all of this to myself. But I didn't. I mean I built this web site and produced nearly 100 videos on the subject for crying out loud! I was very public and transparent every step of the way, and we paid a high price for it too.

I am now the laughing stock of many in the research community and vast numbers of people are out there dragging my name through the mud and creating blogs, websites and videos to discredit me as a "nut-job" who has "gone off the deep end" and all sorts of other things too. It is now not at all uncommon for someone to reference my prior work to a friend, colleague and/or family member and the response to be, "Well he believes the Earth is flat too, so no thanks. That dude's crazy..." and blah, blah, blah. I've actually heard it for myself. Now, much of my prior work, and probably anything I do in the future will be in question all because of this. So, sorry, but the "he's too afraid of what others may think" scenario doesn't really work. I stepped out and literally put my whole career and previous body of work on the line for this journey.

No. I could not commit to a final conclusion because I still had far more questions than answers and therefore I was just not comfortable aligning 100% with either the globalists or the Flat Earthers. As for the Bible, yes, I knew what it says. I have no question in my mind about it. The Bible is a Flat Earth book from cover to cover. I certainly could have "taken it by faith" but the Bible actually tells me to "prove all things." I was not able to adequately do that concerning the Earth and its place the cosmos, so therefore my quest continued.

While on that quest, specifically as it pertained to what the Scriptures have to say concerning the shape and nature of our world and its place in the cosmos, when it came to Biblical scholars and theologians weighing in on this issue, I must say that I have become quite disappointed. For instance, the well respected ministry Answers in Genesis - and others like them - have apparently been bombarded with questions over this topic (just as much as Kent Hovind I imagine), but their responses have been anything but impressive - or Biblical. For instance, on May 24, 2016, Dr. Danny R. Faulkner wrote a blog for AiG titled, "Is the Earth Flat?" in which my name came up in the context of "Biblical Flat Earthers" out there talking about this subject. Of course, as you might expect, his answer to that question was essentially, "No. The Earth is not flat and the Bible never said it was!"

I did however find it rather disturbing that "Answers in Genesis" provided NO ANSWERS FROM GENESIS in the article! Nor did they do much more than prove just how much they actually trust modern science (falsely so-called as Paul would say) and the Nazi/Freemason and thoroughly occult/pagan founded organization called NASA.

The majority of their arguments stem from the preconceived notion that NASA is completely trustworthy, thus "we know that...blah, blah, blah..." Oh yeah, and Jim Irwin was a Christian (and also a Freemason btw), so how dare we question the words of other Christians!?

"Christians who want to entertain this nonsense ought to know that during his six-month stay on the International Space Station in 2006, astronaut Jeffrey Williams photographed the earth more than any astronaut in history. Some of Williams’ photos are found in his book, The Work of His Hands: A View of God’s Creation from Space. Many of the photos show that the earth is spherical. It ought to be apparent from the book’s title that Williams is a Christian, but the book’s content makes it abundantly clear. Hence, to doubt that the earth is spherical or that astronauts have gone into space is to accuse a Christian brother of perpetuating a tremendous lie.

But Williams is not the only Christian to have gone into space: Jim Irwin and Charles Duke were among the twelve men who walked on the moon..."

Jeff Williams? OK. Yeah, watch the LiveLeaks video of him being interviewed by people on Earth as he is (allegedly) in the ISS and see the many problems with his carefully coached "interview" (especially take care to note the huge discrepancies in the delay that should be present in the interview from both sides). Note also the big, round, long barrel lenses on the cameras with which he used to take all those wonderful "pics of the spherical Earth" as they allegedly fly 17,500 mph over it (in spite of the other videos we have - supposedly - from the ISS showing a totally motionless Earth below it). Between this and several other easily disproved misconceptions laid out in this article, it drives me crazy that I simply don't have the time to give a detailed rebuttal to what is becoming an all too common, exceptionally lame counter-argument from the Christian "science" community - which blatantly ignores what at least the highly credentialed scholars of Logos Bible Software were brave enough to acknowledge concerning what the Bible actually has to say about this topic. Indeed, the Answers in Genesis article definitely didn't do much to convince me of the "official story" we've supposedly all believed for thousands of years:

As for the scholars of Logos Bible Software, please see also my blog:

Dr. Michael Heiser does NOT believe the Earth is flat! No kidding. Never said he did.

And while Kent Hovind and his buddy Edrique Visser made a number of videos attempting to debunk my work (as well as that of others), all I could do was shake my head. Actually, I really wanted to do much more than that. You have no idea how tempted I was to create a whole series of videos, which could have easily refuted most of their arguments, but time didn't allow. Besides, it seemed like brother Hovind was already going through enough difficulties at home and I really didn't want to add to anything he was dealing with, so I felt it best to let it go. Having gone through a divorce myself, I know how painful and difficult it can be and the last thing I wanted to do was "kick a good man while he's already down." That said, it was and is quite disturbing to me that he could be so dogmatic about the KJV (which absolutely does not support any notion of the Earth as a spinning, heliocentric ball in an ever expanding universe) and so very good at exposing the public text books on many areas of "science" that are clearly fraudulent and/or full of errors concerning the age of the Earth and the origin of life on it, and yet, at the same, time totally capitulate to "monkey-man science," claiming "We've all seen the pictures (of the globe Earth) in the textbooks." Wow. Anyway...

Some called me a "doubting Thomas" because I was so dogmatic about what I knew the Bible said, but yet remained uncommitted (well 8 out of 10 is hardly "uncommitted" in my opinion) to fully embracing the claims of the Flat Earthers. The thing is, I was just being honest with myself and I actually took comfort in Thomas' story, because even though he had "heard the word" from people who were actual, eye-witnesses to the risen Savior and who were trusted friends of his, he still needed to see more proof for himself in order to believe. And you know what? Yeshua met him where he was. Yes, it is more blessed for those who believe and yet have not seen, but Thomas still got to see the risen Savior for himself. At that point, he didn't need to put his fingers in the holes. He had all the proof he could ever need and Yeshua still loved him. I believed He would do the same for me. "Lord I believe, but help my unbelief" is actually not an uncommon thing in the Bible. Many had similar struggles. In fact, I would say, all of the disciples were in fear and unbelief until Yeshua showed up. They just didn't have their thoughts and words recorded for all to see like Thomas did. If you can believe without proof, great. Maybe I still had my own substantial degree of cognitive dissonance to overcome, but I felt like I had to have indisputable proof. The disciples all received the truth one way or another, and I was confident I would too.

Then came the trip to Lake Michigan and more specifically the lead up to it and the aftermath from it. I will be producing a video, which will give all the details, but suffice it to say, YHWH was really working on me both during and after the trip.

Some have already received rather interesting "Divine confirmation" concerning this topic. My friend Rick Hummer (who went with me on the Lake Michigan trip) for instance had this experience very early on (last year) in this whole investigation:

I think that's awesome, but I had no such experiences. In a way, I am glad though. Because if I just had that "lightning bolt experience" I never would have dug as deep as I did, nor learned as much as I have along the way. And if the journey of this past year is any indication of what treasures can be found along the way, I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing what gets dug up in the days ahead. But I have to say, I really, truly believe YHWH has answered my prayers and this is where I am with everything now:

I repent for doubting Him. And NASA is not my god. I took a look into the "side" of NASA and found an empty suit, which smelled like the most putrid sewer. It reeks of deception. Whereas...

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I am told throughout the Scriptures that YHWH is a God of truth.

1 Samuel 12:24 Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

He has been with me my whole life and has done tremendously awesome and truly amazing things in, through and for me. I have prayed to Him many times and sought after Him as King David did and came to the same conclusions he did:

Psalm 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

Psalm 25:10 All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Psalm 26:3 For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.

Psalm 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Psalm 57:10 For thy mercy is great unto the heavens, and thy truth unto the clouds.

Psalm 85:11Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.

Psalm 86:11 Teach me thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.

Psalm 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

Psalm 96:13 Before the Lord: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Psalm 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Psalm 108:4 For thy mercy is great above the heavens: and thy truth reacheth unto the clouds.


Psalm 119:30 I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me.

Because I am choosing to believe...

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.


Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Psalm 146:6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:

David says that YHWH has magnified His Word above His name. That's hugely powerful. And I have to thank William Schnoebelen for reminding me of the One in Whom our trust needs to be at a time (during the Michigan trip) when I was really down. As if it were a kiss from YHWH Himself, William posted this video:

This video was the beginning of several days worth of intense conviction. Finally, I just gave in and said, "OK. There are still a lot of things that I do not understand concerning the shape and nature of the Earth and its place in the cosmos, but one thing I know to be true is your presence in my life and the fact that in the 47 years I've been here, the Bible has never let me down. I will therefore commit to your Word."

My confession after over a year of research

What does that mean? Well, I don't like labels because they come with the baggage associated with them. The term "Flat Earther" has a lot of baggage, much of which does not fit me. Therefore, I prefer to label myself and define my own identity. So... I am no longer considering myself to be a Zetetic Agnostic. Rather, now, I am quite content to say I am a Zetetic Biblical Earther. By that I mean, I'm still searching and inquiring, but I'm choosing to align myself with what the Bible has to say... and let the chips fall where they may.

I hope at the very least, the content of this website and all of the efforts I've put into it along with the many videos I've posted on YouTube for you to consider have caused you to start questioning everything, because I really believe we need to do that. Why? Because Scripture warns us of a coming Great Deception - a delusion that will be so great, even the elect could be deceived by it. Is the spinning, heliocentric globe that deception? I don't know. Could be. I'd say it certainly is the best candidate I've seen so far. Why? Because this notion of a spinning, heliocentric globe, orbiting an average sun in an average galaxy among billions of other galaxies, potentially with other earth-like planets orbiting their suns in an ever expanding Universe, totally nullifies the Creation accounts of Scripture and it is what made evolution and the idea of "ancient aliens" even remotely plausible. And assuming this is the Great Deception, the motive for deceiving us is quite clearly obvious to me...

Regardless, we only become good at what we practice. So why not practice questioning everything we see and hear now? Why not "test everything" by the Scriptures? Do not believe anything simply because someone else believes it. Don't just trust that what others have said and what you've learned in school or in church is the truth. Get out there and start doing your own research. Read your Bible for yourself. Don't rely on professors, scholars, scientists, astronauts, preachers and "theologians" to teach you. The Bible says...

1 John 2:
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

I have much, much more to say, but this will have to do for now. Ultimately, since I am not likely to ever go up into space myself, and since there will always be the "Yeah, but..." guys to taunt and mock any "evidence" I may provide, I'm fairly certain, for many, this issue may end up having to be decided as a matter of faith. And after all I've seen and experienced along this journey, even if all I've said here is totally debunked, I'm still going to have to put my faith on the side of Scripture, because the alternative is to put my faith into NASA and monkey-man science, and that is something I simply cannot do. The Holy Spirit (not any flawed person - and certainly not those who are violently opposed to YHWH) was specifically sent to guide us into and teach us all truth (John 16:13), so I will put my trust in the Spirit.

Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

In the meantime, since I am commanded to "prove all things," I will still endeavor, though I am limited by time and a lack of resources, to continue on my quest concerning these issues... as I hope you will too. And as we continue on our journey, let us trust the Holy Spirit to lead us on this and all other "quests for truth," because our Enemy is known as the "Father of Lies" for a reason.

Moving forward, I will be "letting God be true and every man a liar," (Romans 3:4) and taking Paul's advice to Timothy:

1 Timothy 6:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

- Rob Skiba


Architects of a Spherical World?

If you have been blessed by these materials and would like to contribute toward our ministry,
please feel free to use the PayPal button below:

If you prefer not to contribute on-line, you can send your gifts to:

King's Gate Media, LLC
Attn.: Rob Skiba
PO Box 118461
Carrollton, TX 75011

Please note, we are NOT a 501c3, which means our message is not regulated by the government,
nor are we able to give you a tax deductible receipt for any contributions.