A very quick example that it may need to be reviewed and facts checked:
Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace won the bet. Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel, but
the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated.VOL XXIV The Weekly Reporter May 6, 1876 pages 607-611
Court Ruling:
"One question which presents itself is whether this agreement amounts in effect to a wager; and, if so, whether the plaintiff, by the effect of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, a. 19, is prevented from maintaining this action.
We will in the first instance proceed with the case on the assumption it is a wager. It is well established by numerous authorities, which would be superfluous to cite, that at common law a wager, being a contract by A. to pay money to B. on the happening of a given event, in consideration of B. paying money to him on the event not happening..... " You can read it yourself it goes into mentioning a lot of precedences and mentioning laws. The ruling was based on wagers are not legally enforceable contracts.
Nothing about because Wallace failed to offer proof or cheated.
According to the court transcripts and evidence provided witnesses said that Wallace proved it in a satisfactory manner. No where in the transcript does it say that Wallace cheated and that is why the court ruled against him. Well except being accused by Walsh.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9wFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA608&lpg=PA608&dq=alfred+wallace+vs+john+hampden+court+ruling&source=bl&ots=679I6encMk&sig=xI5XTDd4I0fo6S1REb7uHs15uu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid6tnksNPKAhVC72MKHX0aDAEQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=alfred%20wallace%20vs%20john%20hampden%20court%20ruling&f=falseYou may also want to remove the link to this since it can be misleading:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.htmlYou have it under further evidence. What was done what I assume was a little fun by Professor Mark Fonstad was not proving that Kansas was flat like as I think you want people to think. What he was doing is basically comparing which would be flatter if either were the same size.
Evidence from the article:
One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an
ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one,
whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local
ellipsoid with a second-order
polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local
ellipsoid’s
semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.
They are using calculations based on a RE model.
This article in no way supports your theory except it has the word flat. The conclusion of the experiment is Kansas would be flatter then a pancake the same size laid on the globe. Simply because the math used assumed Kansas is located on a spherical planet and the theoretical pancake would also be.
If you would like I will volunteer to do fact checking for your wiki. Seriously I would do it and remain objective. I have no problem with you believe it, but do have a problem when you direct people to it as a source of reliable information that the information on it can be misleading or wrong. You are presenting yourselves as having the truth and facts. That should be reflected in the information you make public and use to inform people.