ep136-Mark Sargent

Be the 1st to vote.

When? Saturday, March 7, 2015 7:11pm EST

Who? Mark Sargent of Clues


I’m not sure that any of this testimony of Admiral Byrd can be taken as true. We can only hope, but actors from the military have been around since the beginning. Did he really go there? Why the 180 mile (8+1=9) number?

Does this video make Matt Boylen more believable? I mentioned to Mark that he is probably a shill, since no-one is ex-military. Mark mentioned he was a contractor.



Dark City

The Village


The Signal

TV: The Dome

No tags for this post.

29 thoughts on “ep136-Mark Sargent

  1. delcroix

    The plot thickens …


    For an in-depth analysis of Mark Sargent’s attempted infiltration and derailment of the movement, see our thread at IFERS here:

    The following interview features myself, Eric Dubay, a genuine, legitimate flat Earth researcher talking with DJ Buttamilk (Dan Lefkowitz) of Brattleboro, Vermont community radio. Notice how after just an hour of listening to a Real Flat Earther like in this interview it is difficult to deny the flat Earth truth, yet after listening to a fake Flat Earther like Mark Sargent for 2 hours, many people have commented they are completely turned off by the subject now and want nothing more to do with it:
    Read about the history of the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society here.

    Audio Only Here


  2. UNreal

    @Ab: Did you manage to make an audio-version ‘back-to-back’ of MSargent’s video-series ?

  3. sami

    Some thoughts.

    This was a great audio and I really enjoyed watching the youtube videos. Fascinating stuff, but there are problems with the model and questions that need explanations, such as how is an eclipse handled in this model?

    To me, it makes more sense than the model that NASA is pushing but unfortunately we don’t have any real evidence of this wall of ice that surrounds us. Is it protected by the military all the way around the earth? Is that feasible? Thoughts?

    I think you’re onto something, Mark and this is a discussion that needs more attention. I no longer believe in the modern pseudo-scientific NASA model for anything, so I am naturally curious and am more inclined to believe simpler explanations of the world around me that are consistent with what I observe. I would like to see you develop the theory with more evidence.

    1. ab Post author

      The video is an excellent gateway into the whole topic. It’s unreasonable to assume the Mark has all the answers but reasonable to assume that he has some good guesses.

  4. ab Post author

    Mark responds:

    Hey there,

    No worries about the back and forth during the show. I actually prefer it!

    I did one last night that went well. And you’re right, the Skype audio is way better.


    As for the questions and comments.

    1. I think the hosts voice is actually quite good!

    2. As I mentioned above, I prefer heavier back and forth in an interview, lets my thought process move around a bit.

    3. I don’t think CERN is a threat. Whoever built this place would have taken that into account, along with HARP, and others. If it was me building it, I wouldn’t allow types of household chemicals that could be used to blow up the house, like say a unified field weapon.

    4. Agree with Johan Backles, but I wouldn’t chalk it all up to gullibility. Remember, if you are born into a system like this, we naturally expect our parents and ultimately the authority to tell us the truth. It’s only later do we find out how power corruption works. Not so much for women of course, who should probably be running the place. Maybe the world was built by women as a test for men? I digress.

    5. That George Orwell quote link is quite good, and reinforces a key point. Sooner or later, you had to show people a picture of earth, and you had to do it quickly, so that the private sector didn’t try to do it for financial gain. Then the accidents come, then the questions, and so on.

  5. babette

    What role might CERN play with regards to the Flat Earth/Solid Firmament? And what of Chemtrails?

    Thank you.

  6. Carys

    Enjoyed this unplanned chat. Thanks Mark and Ab. It would be good to have Mark back on to answer some more questions from the crew here. The mythology of our place in the heavens, if they even exist, is so programmed into our minds and embedded in our culture that even entertaining the idea that our earth is not as we have been told requires a real shaking off of old thinking patterns.

    Despite all I’ve learnt here, and elsewhere, about the vast amount of fakery surrounding us, this topic seems to be the one I’ve purposefully avoided thinking about. But, as Johan Backes said in an earlier comment, “This discussion I believe to be at the very top of the fakeology food chain. its the master hoax and encompasses all others.”

    Ab’s remark about “They” is so very true! A single mention of “They” is enough to shut down any sensible discussion on fakeology.

    “Who are they? Where are they? How can they possibly know all this?” – more fun in space from Jem’s (2004) album “Finally Woken” youtu.be/qSLvcJ4I1mw

  7. khammad

    Below is the concept map built from Mark Sargent’s explanation of the Flat Earth Theory, also known as the Petri Dish Theory.

    Does his theory hold water?

    1. UNreal

      We have several theories on the shape of the Earth, so to answer your question wether Mark Sargent’s Flat Model holds water or not:

      YES IT DOES!

      actually, every theory out there hold a lot of water !
      the problem is HOW they hold the water….

      personal opinion is that water is contained in a concave shape somehow (most effective) but what contains our sky is more mysterious. Van Allen of course says it’s a belt,,,

    2. Tom Dalpra

      It was the word ‘Clues’ that got me. I assumed this was a nod to September Clues.

      Then at 1:09:25 when Ab asks Mark if he had ‘heard about’ the ‘very famous ( well phrased Ab ) September Clues’, his reply was:

      ”I did, I have not see, I have not heard about it,” LAUGHSNOR I HAVE SEEN IT”.

      ”Sargent! You’re an idiot! You’re stammering under questioning. Get your lies straight! Out!”

      I dunno.

      The world still appears flat to me. I’m not convinced that salt water oceans were put there to stop people escaping though.

  8. waxbottles

    Lockheed U-2 Flight – 70,000ft (2 Seat TU-2 Trainer)
    There is another version with what james may say’s as he exits the plane. n the last 1 minute of the video The other video edited out the comments.
    it’s a spectacular view from a real high flying perspective.

    1. sami

      What is the point of posting this video? Why do you believe the 70,000ft claims? Why do you believe this pilot is an honest person, speaking from the heart? At the end of the video the narrator goes right into the Apollo talk. Why believe anything in this video?

      1. Dennis

        If you notice during the video the curvature of the cockpits glass as well as the curvature on the face masks. Extremely curved. Take into consideration the curvature of the lens on the camera. Combine all of those curves and look how the earth looks from INSIDE the cockpit. Now, watch when they shoot a picture of the aircraft from outside itself. The horizon lost all that curve and appears flat.

  9. waxbottles

    I wonder if he thinks andrea barnes and the searching for the edge series was a mockumentory?
    I have read that it was a mockumentory for a college study. concerning mark sargent if he is teh flat earth person.

  10. Hare Brain

    He made an interesting observation about there being no non-stop flights from Australia to South America. But then it turns out there are non-stop flights. He then addresses this in his last video – but he doesn’t really answer it. It’s very interesting that the public can’t see the GPS tracking for these flights, but it still didn’t answer the question: are there non-stop flights with a flight time that matches a round world? It would seem easy to verify if these are real flights. He should make another video addressing this.

    1. richard benedict

      I agree Hare Brain. I went to Expedia and looked at the flights and what Mark is saying about flights betrween Group one cities (in Australia and New Zealand) and Group two cities (in south South America) doesn’t add up. Here is a copy of the email I sent.

      Hi Mark,
      I enjoyed listening to you speak with Ab Irato and I watched the Flat earth video you had posted.

      I followed your advice and I went to Expedia and I checked a one way flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Sydney, Australia. The first flight says it takes 22 hours and 32 minutes. Included in the time are 2 lay overs totaling a little over three hours. The flight goes from Buenos Aires to Santiago Chile to Auckland New Zealand to Sydney, with layover in Santiago and Auckland. The flight from Santiago to Auckland is 13 hours over the South Pacific a distance of 6 thousand miles and flying at roughly 462 miles an hour. I do not see anything unusual with these figures. or with the flight path taken as it is common to go to different hubs
      Am I missing something? How would you interpret these numbers in view of your flat earth theory?

      Other flights are 25 hours but they include multiple layovers of up to 4 1/2 hours.

      Am I misinterpreting the data?


      I will post Mark’s answer

      1. richard benedict

        Mark replied promptly to my emails and we exchanged several of then. Mark said to re-watch Clue #9 as that is where he answers this question. The answer is that this GPS is killed over water so the route the plane is taking in concealed. Here was my response.

        “The point I am trying to understand is the time elapsed for the flight itself and the alleged distance it travels. It the example I present below :

        “The flight from Santiago to Auckland is 13 hours over the South Pacific a distance of 6 thousand miles and flying at roughly 462 miles an hour. ”

        Although I realize this time could be alleged, it is something that I as a passenger can verify,. The flight time anyway. Where is the plane traveling for the 13 hours and the roughly 6 thousand mile. This is what I need help.”

        Here was Mark’ reply:
        “…the Santiago/Auckland is a good one because it’s one of the very few non stops in the South…
        You think that the flight will be going over the South Pacific, and if it was a globe, it would, but it can’t, because if the map is flattened out, then the ocean route would be much longer.

        So you fly straight through the middle of the map, kill the GPS so no one knows where you are, and PRETEND you just went over the ocean.”

        My response : “I used the map on attachment as my sample. But I still have the distance and time problem e.g. it is 5,590 mile from Santiago Chile to Los Angeles California. If I continue to go in a relatively straight line from Santiago across the flat map what is the distance between the the two? Using, L.A. as an example the distance would be much farther , a visual estimate of almost three times the 5,590 figure. In other words, using a flat map from the images provided in a google search how far is it in a straight line from Auckland N.Z. to Santiago Chile. I guess that is the ultimate question for me. ”

        It is here that Mark says he throws up his hands and says “If they do not show the plane live, how do I know it is a real flight?”

        I welcome anyone’s comments as I believe the questions remains unanswered-If I sit in an airplane that takes off from Santiago Chile and is in the air for thirteen hours then lands in Auckland, New Zealand.” what and where did the plane travel over? Did it go in a straight according the attached map. From Santiago, Chile to L.A. Ca. is 5,590 mile. A rough estimate by looking at the map shows it to about a third of the way from the bottom left of the map to the top right. What would be the actual distance from Santiago, Chile to Auckland, N,Z. on a flat map?

        1. Hoi Polloi

          Thank you for doing this and challenging him.

          The one single piece of evidence for his proposed physical Earth shape of “flat” or even different and it’s this weak?

          I wasn’t sure I wanted to give this attention because I’ve already looked at all sorts of models and didn’t like flat earth for its severe lack of evidence — especially corroborating evidence. But I watched the videos waiting for some kind of evidence besides our inability to gather it … instead of the creator’s confirmation bias. This “airplane times” bit was it — the only bit of evidence — and I’d need it a lot more convincing and simple to explain, like any other sort of science issue. He doesn’t want to “go into” the model? It’s so flimsy.

          I’m much more convinced of Wild Heretic’s explorations into concavity and light theory than this model. At least Wild Heretic shows genuine interest in science. He talks about experiments, he does research and he cites his findings. He shows an interest in discovering rather than creating or adopting/creating myths and belief systems.

          Unfortunately, intentional or not, the use of the word “Clues” in the “Flat Earth Clues” video series may hurt search results for September Clues or CluesForum. Intentional or not, it’s almost like how a smear campaign to associate any hard questions with “wacky flat Earthers with no evidence” would be run. I am confused what you mean by “Wow” Ab, when you mention this series. I know what I would follow “Wow” with after viewing them. Disappointing.

          1. UNreal

            Fakeologist is a self-proclaimed ‘Fan Site’ and as such it is a bit hard on Ab to demand him to have a purely ‘scientific’ approach. The fact that Ab posted this phonecall as a ‘show’ before taking the time to properly digest the information may be a bit ‘rushed’ ?
            To have posted this as a ‘call’ would be more appropriate and also allow for the discussion here help prepare more qualified questions and critique.
            It is troubling however that the author chose “clues” in the title,,, and also that he claims to not have heard about neither September Clues nor Cluesforum…

            As for the shape of the earth, we are still quite ‘clue’ less… what is certain is that there is no model that clearly is convincing in itself. The trouble is mainly that without a working model of gravity or “the universe” it seems difficult to come to any distinct model of the earth. The fact that water is “curving” in many models does not convince me personally, so i’m somehow inclined to believe water always will be flat, and hence that no ‘curved’ model of our oceans seem plausible,,, guess that leaves me between flat and concave for now.

            Hope for a coming scheduled program where the discussion is opened and discussed in a objective calm manner. Enjoyed the call and really enjoy the subject, hopefully to be elaborated upon !

          2. ab Post author

            Wow was my first *real* reaction. I posted it quite quickly, and then called the phone number in the video on a lark and recorded it. I had a similar reaction when watching the Great American PsyOpera. Am I being fooled? Perhaps, which is one of the reasons I present the series here. I suggest that all questions be left as comments, and I’ll get Mark back on to answer them.

            Is the clues bit a smear campaign? Mark says no. Everyone will have to decide if that’s true.

            Let’s keep talking and flush this latest one out.

          3. Johan Backes

            Hoi the proof of the flat earth is all around you, you do not need a video to figure it out. I am surprised you are more attracted to Lord Steven Christ’s concave earth theory, Wild Heretics original source and mentor. As far as experimental evidence goes (nevermind your own eyes) troll through this list www.mrsciguy.com/documents/pro…

            Also I think you are being a tad paranoid about the usage of the word “clues” in the title. According to www.wordfrequency.info the word “clue” is the 3359th most frequently used word of the 450 million word Corpus of Contemporary American English. You don’t have a trademark on it do you?

            Cluesforum would do well to start its own thread on the topic, as important as 911 is and has been, the shape of the container we live in and the so called mystery regarding it trumps that research and all others.

        2. Hare Brain

          article about gps tracking and planes:


          Can’t planes be tracked with GPS?
          Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world’s air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

          Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not usually shared with air traffic control.

          Some of the most modern aircraft are able to “uplink” GPS data to satellite tracking services, but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar coverage.

          The satellite data which suggests flight MH370 flew on for several hours are basic ‘pings’ sent by the plane, and so far only help to identify two very approximate flight corridors north and south.

          Over the next decade, a new system called ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) is expected to replace radar as the primary surveillance method for air traffic control

          ADS-B will see aircraft work out their position using GPS and then relay data to the ground and other planes.

          But, as with existing secondary radar, ADS-B coverage does not extend over the oceans.

          this is from a flight tracking website:

          Flightradar24 has a network of more than 4,000 ADS-B receivers around the world that receives plane and flight information from aircraft with ADS-B transponders and sends this information to our servers. Due to the high frequency used (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-400 km (150-250 miles) in all directions depending on location. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. The distance limit makes it very hard to get ADS-B coverage over oceans.

  11. Thereason

    Excellent impromptu broadcast guys.

    Matt Boylen talking about John F. Kennedy’s
    Executive Order 11110, is enough to for me to discard him as a shill,
    backed up by his elusiveness.

    Would be nice to get Mark back on here, for the Spanish inquisition…!!

  12. knuckle

    Have watched all of Mark’s videos — good stuff there.Thanks for having him on and Thanks Mark for picking up the phone.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.