Flat Earth is NOT the Answer

Mark Wyatt

There has been an explosion of activity around flat earth around the time that The Principle was screened in the Chicago area in October 2014. 

Flat Earth is a PsyOp to Attack Documentary “The Principle”

Flat Earth PsyOp Against Documentary “The Principle” Goes into Overdrive!

Regardless of why this is happening, it is clear that flat earth is not the answer to any issues in cosmology, nor to social or any other issues in our time (or ever for that matter). Flat earth is demonstrably wrong, even using some of the “proofs” offered by flat earth proponents.  For instance, some flat earth proponents claim that there exist no images of the entire (face) of earth from space, only composite images (i.e., pieced together from partial images). This may have been true 5 years ago, but since at least 2011, the Elektro-L satellites from Russia have been transmitting regular non-composite images from space. Some flat earth proponents then argue that these are still composite in the sense that they are combined images from different wavelengths, but this effects only the color of the image, not the shape.

Elektro-L: Flat Earth Debunking Modern Russian Satellite System

Here is such a view for February 1st, 2016 at  10:30 AM Moscow time.

Elektro-L view of Earth, 01FEB2016 10:30AM Moscow Time

Elektro-L view of Earth, 01FEB2016 10:30AM Moscow Time


Since late last year NASA has put a spacecraft into operation that returns lower resolution images of the entire face of earth, the Deep Space Climate Observatory. Many flat earth proponents claim that any image from space is a fraud, and do not trust NASA nor governments.

Another way to tell the earth ‘s surface is round is to take a look at photographs looking across large bodies of water. In a youtube video, a flat earth proponent, Terry Robinson claims to prove flat earth using such photographs. He makes some errors in his calculations. In one instance, he claims to show a photograph from “the airport” in Kauai looking across the water at Oahu, and claims using a digital protractor that he should not be able to see Oahu at all or maybe just the very tip of the highest peak. He claims that the airport (taken to be Linhue airport ) is about 50’ in elevation, but still he starts his digital protractor at sea level and illustrates line of sight passing above Oahu. He also claims that Oahu is about 108 miles away (center to center of the island).

In reality.  Linhue airport  is 153’ above sea level. This difference (103’)is a very big difference to horizon visibility.  Measuring approximately from Linhue airport to the highest peak on Oahu (on the near side of Oahu from Kauai) on Google maps indicates about 83 miles (and this includes the curvature of the earth, which adds close to a mile). To be conservative, we will keep this distance.


Distance from Kauai to Oahu, spherical earth


Now using a curvature of earth calculator (I checked the math the author used here, and it is correct using the Pythagorean theorem).  Inputting 153 feet for h0 (height of the observer on Kauai at the airport) and d0=83 miles (distance to the object, highest peak on Oahu) returns the answer that the observer (at the airport) should be able to see anything above 3070 feet (the highest peak on Oahu is 4025’). Note that if we account for the earth’s curvature, then the observer will be able to see anything above 2980’. The conclusion is the top 1000’ of Oahu should be visible (anything above ~ 3000′). This picture form Terry Robinson’s video is consistent with that:


View of Oahu from Kauai (airport)


Only part of the island is visible. Compare that to another image from his video which he claims was taken from the Wailua River Overlook. I cannot find an elevation for this, but he claims it is around 200’ (he also claimed the airport was around 50’).  It is clearly the same height or higher than the airport based on the amount of the island that is visible. Compare to the above image (the River Outlook image is more enlarged, but the shape is very similar).

View of Oahu from Kauai (River Outlook)

debunked flat earth proof Oahu


In order to aid in comparison, I have blown up the island portion of the airport image and placed it above the River outlook image.



These images indicate the consistency of the image taken from the airport at 153’ elevation and the highest portions of the island visible from that view compared with the River Outlook view, which may be close to 200’ in elevation, but perhaps a bit higher.

I have taken an image from this site showing the mountains that likely would be visible from Kauai (to the left and up from Oahu). The circled peaks in the front of the topographic  map would form the large mountain visible on the left in the images from youtube, and the circled ridge on the topographic map at the right side  may form the smaller tail section to the right side in the youtube images (though this is also further in distance, so it may not be less visible). Note also that above and to the left of the peak on the upper left side are regions closer to the viewer on Kauai, so it is likely that (given these are 5 miles closer) that elevations as low as 2600 feet are visible.

Please help to educate flat earth proponents about the observational falsification of flat earth. There are plenty of reasons to suspect issues in current cosmology, as the scientists themselves discuss in The Principle, but there is no reason to pursue flat earth.

Oahu_visible mountains

elevation of Oahu



13 Responses

  1. Jonnyoops says:

    You didn’t prove anything here at all…. those photos were taken with a small lens. If you were to use a telescope you could easily see the rest of Oahu. I’ve done it myself. So if you are going to put an entire page of “evidence” to debunk flat earth earth thenot put something compelling at least.

    • Mark Wyatt says:

      Ok, Jonnyoops, present your data and analysis. I do not happen to be in Hawaii, so I can only evaluate the evidence presented to me. Your claims minus analysis and documentation are not compelling in the least.

    • josh says:

      Nothing qualifies with you people as proof everything is dismissed, you are pointless to engage with unless it is telling you what you want to hear. Your global conspiracy of all pilots & passengers, surveyors, NASA, all space-related tech companies, all inventors and designers of various technologies of communication and energy, educators. That has no consequence whether it is true or not is laughable. Do you get that? It is simply to absorb paranoid people into something and draw them away from actual conspiracies and discredit them. This whole thing blew up with Obama mentioning it and the propagandist nudge was on. This same discrediting campaign was used against Catholics in the past, no one intelligent has ever believed this, it has always been a hoax. You are a shill for a pointless discrediting psyop.

  2. John T. Banewicz says:

    Russian Earth photo is perfectly round. Some say that Earth bulges at the equator?

    • Mark Wyatt says:

      Please read part two. I address that question in the part two article.

    • DarkStar says:

      The “bulge” is about a 2 PIXEL difference in these photos so your claim of “perfectly round” is absurd – you didn’t do the math did you?

  3. Joseph Bongiorno says:

    Mark, I appreciate what you’ve done and are doing, but I feel it may be too soon to “debunk” the flat earth possibility until you’ve done sufficient research on the evidence that’s been presented, much of which is compelling, or at least cause for serious questions. Without a doubt, there are some bogus ideas out there, but there’s also a lot of sincere and knowledgeable hypotheses coming forth. You’ve already demonstrated the overwhelming evidence of geocentricism, why not go the extra mile to examine the evidence for flat earth? I’ve found the ideas put forth by Rob Skiba (who has proven honest enough to acknowledge his own prior errors) to be worth looking into, at least as a start.

    • Telescope says:

      Geocentrism contradicts the biblical firmament, or sky dome encasing your flat-earth model.
      That third-party authority preaching outdated fables does not replace attention or logic.
      Telescope sights trump feelings.

  4. Galahad says:

    I found this page while searching for a topographical map of Oahu for my own research into this matter, Mark’s math holds true the only thing we differ on is his calculations were based on an 83 mile distance between Kauai and Oahu and I perhaps foolishly used the 90 mile distance claimed in the image in the david wolfe video (though mr. wolfe himself seems to be saying 70 miles) when i re-ran my calculations with the 83 mile distance our answers are nearly identical. The biggest problem with the video seems to be that Mr. Wolfe assumed that his line of sight was tangential to the earths curvature at the point he was standing. From 153 above sea level that point is actually about 15 miles out.

  5. Mark Wyatt says:

    Hey Guy:

    Flat earth as an idea has been around for thousands of years! I was talking specifically about the recent upsurge in interest. So, no, I do not see a fallacy in my argument.

    • Telescope says:

      Your oudated model discounts accumulated observations contrary, esp. telescopic sights of the planets and satellite flares visible during twilight.
      Truth always works.

  6. […] Flat Earth is NOT the Answer – The Principle Movie […]

Leave a Reply