Is Western Australia one of the least populous places on Earth?

In terms of population density, Western Australia (WA) is indeed one of the most sparsely populated places on the planet.

While the term “least populous” usually refers to the total number of people (where WA has about 3 million inhabitants), it is the population density that makes the region remarkable.

Density and Distribution

Western Australia covers roughly 2.5 million square kilometers (roughly the size of Western Europe or the combined area of Alaska and Texas). Because of this massive landmass, its population density is approximately 1.2 people per square kilometer.

To put that into perspective:

• Global Average: ~60 people per km².
• Greenland: ~0.14 people per km² (the least dense territory).
• Mongolia: ~2.1 people per km² (often cited as the least dense sovereign nation).
• Western Australia: ~1.2 people per km².

The “Empty” State

The density figure is actually a bit misleading because the population is not evenly spread. Western Australia is a classic example of extreme urbanization:

• The Perth Hub: About 80% of the state’s population lives in the Greater Perth metropolitan area.
• The Rest: Once you leave the southwest corner, the density drops to near zero. Large swaths of the Pilbara, the Kimberley, and the interior deserts have vast areas with no permanent residents at all, save for isolated mining towns or Aboriginal communities.

Why is it so empty?

The primary reasons for this sparse settlement are environmental:

• Arid Climate: Much of the state is comprised of the Great Sandy, Gibson, and Great Victoria Deserts.
• Water Scarcity: Reliable freshwater sources are extremely limited outside the southwest.
• Soil Quality: Large portions of the interior have ancient, nutrient-poor soils that are unsuitable for large-scale agriculture.

If I choose the right place in WA – would I have less people in 1000Km of than if I went to Pitcairn Island?

Actually, no. Even in the most desolate stretches of Western Australia (WA), you would still have significantly more people within 1000km than you would on Pitcairn Island.

The scale of the Pacific Ocean is so vast that it dwarfs even the emptiness of the Australian Outback. Here is how the “radius of isolation” breaks down for both:

Pitcairn Island (The Winner of Solitude)

Pitcairn is the epitome of isolation. Within a 1000km radius, there are almost zero other humans.

• Local Population: ~47 people.
• The 1000km Radius: It is almost entirely open water. The nearest inhabited land is Mangareva in the Gambier Islands (French Polynesia), which is about 540km away and has a population of roughly 1,500.
• Total within 1000km: Roughly 1,550 people.

Remote Western Australia (The Runner Up)

If you stood at the most remote point in WA—likely somewhere in the Gibson Desert near the Kiwirrkurra Community—your 1000km circle would cover a massive area, but it would inevitably “snag” several significant population centers.

• Local Population: Kiwirrkurra itself has about 180 people.
• The 1000km Radius: From the center of the Gibson Desert, a 1000km radius reaches:
  • Alice Springs, NT: ~25,000 people.
  • Port Hedland/Karratha, WA: ~35,000+ people.
  • Kalgoorlie, WA: ~30,000 people.
  • Broome, WA: ~15,000 people.
• Total within 1000km: Easily 100,000+ people.

The Verdict

While WA is famous for its “big empty,” that emptiness is relative to continental landmasses. Pitcairn’s isolation is oceanic, meaning there isn’t just a lack of towns; there is a lack of ground for people to even exist on.

If you really want to beat Pitcairn for isolation on land, you’d have to head to the Antarctic interior or perhaps certain parts of the Tibetan Plateau, but even then, the Pacific islands usually win the “least neighbors” contest every time.

OK what about 500 km?

Even at 500 km, Pitcairn Island remains significantly more isolated than any point on the Australian mainland.

At this smaller scale, the gap between “remoteness on land” and “remoteness at sea” becomes even clearer.

Pitcairn Island: The Loneliest Circle

If you draw a 500 km circle around Pitcairn:

• Human Count: ~50 people (the residents of Adamstown).
• The Radius: This circle is almost 100% saltwater. The nearest inhabited land is Mangareva in the Gambier Islands, but it is approximately 540 km away.
• Result: You are likely the only person within 500 km who isn’t standing on that same tiny 5-square-kilometer rock with you.

Remote Western Australia: The Desert Hub

If you stand in the most remote part of WA—the Gibson Desert near the Kiwirrkurra Community:

• Local Population: ~180 people in Kiwirrkurra itself.
• The 500 km Radius: While you avoid the “big” cities like Alice Springs (which is ~700 km away), you still catch several smaller Aboriginal communities and outstations.
  • Kintore (Walungurru), NT: ~450 people (~100 km away).
  • Balgo, WA: ~350 people.
  • Warburton, WA: ~570 people.
• Result: Within 500 km, you would likely have between 2,000 and 5,000 people scattered across various desert communities and cattle stations.

Why WA can’t “win”

The reason Western Australia can’t beat Pitcairn is that the Australian government and Indigenous groups have established a network of communities, ranger stations, and mining outposts throughout the interior.

• In WA, “empty” means there might be one person every 100 kilometers.
• In Pitcairn, “empty” means there is nothing but 5,000 meters of vertical water between you and the seafloor for hundreds of kilometers in every direction.

Comparison Table (500 km Radius)

If you are looking for the absolute minimum number of neighbors, Pitcairn is the world heavyweight champion. However, if you want to be on a continent and have the fewest people within 500 km, your best bet isn’t actually WA—it’s likely the Pole of Inaccessibility in Antarctica, where the population is exactly zero.

What is the population desnity of Pitcairn Island?

The population density of Pitcairn Island depends on how you measure it: whether you count only the inhabited island or the entire territory.

As of 2026, the population of Pitcairn is approximately 45 to 50 people.

1. Inhabited Island Density

If you look strictly at Pitcairn Island itself (the only island in the group where people actually live):

• Land Area: ~5 square kilometers
• Population: ~47 people
• Density: 9.4 people per km²

2. Territory-wide Density

If you include the other three islands in the British Overseas Territory (Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno), which are all uninhabited:

• Total Land Area: ~47 square kilometers
• Population: ~47 people
• Density: 1 person per km²

How it compares to Western Australia

Ironically, because Pitcairn Island is so small, its “local” density is actually higher than Western Australia’s state average.

• Western Australia: ~1.2 people per km²
• Pitcairn (Territory): ~1.0 person per km²
• Pitcairn (Island only): ~9.4 people per km²

While Pitcairn is the most isolated place in terms of having “no neighbors” for hundreds of miles, the people who are there are living in a relatively small space (Adamstown). In Western Australia, you can find places where the density is effectively 0.0001 people per km², which is a level of emptiness Pitcairn’s small landmass can’t replicate.

Fun Fact: The “Empty” Neighbor

Henderson Island, which is part of the Pitcairn group, is about 37 square kilometers (roughly 7 times the size of Pitcairn Island) and has a population of zero. It is one of the last near-pristine limestone islands in the world.

What about the Northern Territories in Canada?

When you look at the Northern Territories of Canada, you finally find places that can truly compete with Western Australia—and in many ways, surpass it—for sheer emptiness.

If you are looking for the “least populous” places, Canada’s North is actually less dense than Western Australia.

The Density Battle

Canada’s North is divided into three territories: the Yukon, the Northwest Territories (NWT), and Nunavut.

Nunavut is the clear winner here. It is roughly 75% the size of Western Australia but has only 1.4% of its population. While WA has a density of 1.2 people per km², Nunavut’s density is 0.02.

The 500 km & 1000 km Test

If you stand in a remote part of the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, how does it compare to your Pitcairn and WA scenario?

• At 500 km: In many parts of the High Arctic (like Ellesmere Island), a 500 km circle might contain fewer than 500 people. For example, the community of Grise Fiord has about 130 people, and its nearest “neighbor” is Alert, which is 800 km away and only houses about 60 rotating military/scientific staff.
• At 1000 km: Unlike Western Australia—where a 1000 km circle almost always hits a mining town or a regional hub—in the Canadian Arctic, you could draw a 1000 km circle that contains only a few thousand people.

Why is Canada’s North “emptier” than WA?

While both have extreme environments, the “barriers to entry” are different:

1. Climate: WA is hot and dry, but you can drive a 4WD vehicle across most of it. In much of Nunavut and the NWT, there are no permanent roads connecting communities to the south. Everything must be flown in or brought by sea during the short summer thaw.
2. Infrastructure: WA has a massive mining industry that has “peppered” the desert with small towns, airstrips, and camps. Canada’s Far North has fewer of these hubs, leaving vast “true” wilderness areas.
3. Urbanization: Like Perth in WA, the Canadian territories are highly centralized. In the NWT, nearly half the population lives in one city (Yellowknife). Outside of that city, the population drops off even more sharply than it does in the Australian Outback.

The Verdict

If you want to be on a continent but have the fewest people within 1000 km of you, Nunavut is your best bet. It is the closest thing on a mainland to the isolation of Pitcairn Island.

What About Nunavut Vs Australian Antarctic?

When you bring the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) into the mix, you aren’t just looking at the most remote place in Australia or Canada—you are looking at one of the most desolate places on the physical planet.

Here is how the numbers stack up for 2026:

The Density Duel

While Nunavut is famous for its “emptiness,” it is a bustling metropolis compared to the AAT.

In terms of sheer math, the AAT is over 2,000 times “emptier” than Nunavut. To match the density of the AAT, Nunavut would need to have its entire population reduced to just 20 people.

The 1000 km Test

If you stand at a random point in each territory, your experience of “loneliness” would be radically different:

• In Nunavut: If you stand in the middle of the Kivalliq Region, within 1000 km you would almost certainly have several thousand people, mostly in fly-in Inuit communities like Baker Lake or Arviat, plus the territorial capital, Iqaluit.
• In the AAT: If you stand at the South Pole of Inaccessibility (within the Australian claim), your 1000 km circle would likely contain zero human beings. You would be hundreds of kilometers away from even the smallest research station (like Davis or Casey), which themselves only hold a few dozen people.

Key Differences in “Emptiness”

1. Permanent vs. Transient: Nunavut has a deep, ancient history of permanent human habitation (Inuit). People are born, grow up, and die there. The AAT has zero permanent residents. Everyone there is “visiting,” usually for 6 to 12 months at a time.
2. The “Neighbor” Factor: In Nunavut, you might be 200 km from the nearest person, but they are likely in a heated house with a grocery store nearby. In the AAT, if you are 200 km from your “neighbor,” that neighbor is likely a scientist in a parka trying to keep a generator running in -40°C.
3. Landscape: Nunavut has tundra, rocks, and some vegetation in the summer. The AAT is 98% ice, some of it several kilometers thick. There is virtually no life outside of the coast.

The Verdict

If you want to be as far as possible from another human being while still standing on solid ground, the Australian Antarctic Territory is the winner. It makes Western Australia and even the Canadian Arctic look crowded.

So Why Did Admiral Byrd Say it Was Lush and Verdant on TV?

Admiral Richard Byrd’s “lush and verdant” comments are a fascinating blend of real-life exploration, a famous television interview, and a heavy dose of internet-era myth-making.

The short answer is: He didn’t actually say it was “lush and verdant” on TV, but he did say something that people often misinterpret or embellish.

The Famous TV Interview (1954)

Byrd appeared on the show Longines Chronoscope in 1954. In that interview, he spoke about the vastness and importance of Antarctica. The specific quote that fueled the fire was:

“Strangely enough, there’s a land area the size of the United States that’s never been seen by a human being. And that’s beyond the pole, on the other side of the south pole from Middle America.”

When Byrd said “beyond the pole,” he didn’t mean “inside the Earth” or “past a physical barrier.” To a navigator, “beyond the pole” simply means the other side of the globe relative to where you started. If you fly from South America to the South Pole and keep going, you are now in the East Antarctic—a massive, unexplored plateau.

Where did “Lush and Verdant” come from?

The idea that he saw forests and mammoths comes from a “Secret Diary” that surfaced long after his death (allegedly found in the 1970s or 90s). Most historians and Byrd’s own family consider this diary a complete fabrication or a piece of fiction written by someone else.

In this “diary,” Byrd supposedly describes flying into a hole at the pole and entering a warm land with green trees and a highly advanced civilization. This is the source of the “lush” descriptions, not his actual public interviews or official flight logs.

The “Bungar Hills” (The Real Oasis)

There is a tiny grain of truth that might have confused people. During Operation Highjump (1947), Byrd’s team did discover something called the Bungar Hills (or “Bunger Oasis”).

• This is a 450-square-kilometer area of Antarctica that is ice-free.
• It has open lakes of liquid water and exposed brown rock.
• To a pilot who has seen nothing but white for thousands of miles, seeing open water and dark land looks like a “miracle.”
• However, it isn’t “lush”—it’s essentially a cold, rocky desert. There are no trees or grass, just algae and bacteria.

Summary of the Myth

• What he said on TV: There is a massive, unexplored territory on the other side of the pole with huge resources (coal, oil, etc.).
• What the “Secret Diary” claimed: He flew into a hole and saw a tropical paradise.
• What he actually found: Geothermal “oases” like Bungar Hills where the ice melts, but it’s still Antarctica.

It’s a classic case of a real explorer’s genuine wonder being “remixed” by the internet into a conspiracy theory about Hollow Earth.

Didn’t He Say it Was Free of Ice?

Admiral Byrd did indeed use the term “ice-free,” but he was describing a very specific and localized geological phenomenon, not a hidden paradise or a tropical world.

When people hear “ice-free,” they often imagine grass and trees. In the context of Antarctica, however, “ice-free” simply means exposed rock and liquid water in a place where there should be thousands of feet of solid ice.

The “Ice-Free” Discovery: Bunger Hills

During Operation Highjump (1947), one of Byrd’s pilots, Lieutenant Commander David Bunger, was flying over East Antarctica when he spotted something impossible: a large area of dark, bare ground surrounded by the massive ice sheet.

Byrd and his team described this area—now known as the Bunger Hills (or Bunger Oasis)—as “ice-free.” Here is why it caused such a stir:

• Liquid Lakes: The area contained large lakes of open water that weren’t frozen, despite the sub-zero temperatures.
• Warmth: The water was actually “warm” relative to the ice (around 30°F to 40°F), likely due to the dark rocks absorbing solar radiation and the lack of ice cover acting as an insulator.
• Size: It covered about 450 square kilometers.

How “Ice-Free” Became “Lush and Verdant”

Byrd’s genuine scientific excitement about these “oases” was eventually exaggerated by others into the myths you see today.

1. The Scientific Report: Byrd described a “land of blue and green lakes and brown hills” in an environment that is usually 100% white. To an explorer, this was a “miracle.”
2. The Media Twist: When these reports hit the news, the term “oasis” led the public to imagine palm trees. In reality, an Antarctic oasis is just a cold, rocky desert that happens to be clear of snow.
3. The Hollow Earth Myth: Later, writers took his description of “ice-free land beyond the pole” and combined it with the fake “Secret Diary” to claim he found a hidden tropical world.

What Byrd Actually Said

In his official accounts and interviews (like the one on Longines Chronoscope), he stayed focused on the strategic and resource value of these areas. He wasn’t looking for a jungle; he was looking for coal, oil, and minerals that were accessible because the rock was exposed.

“Strangely enough, there’s a land area the size of the United States that’s never been seen by a human being… it’s an untouched reservoir of natural resources.”

He saw the “ice-free” areas as proof that Antarctica wasn’t just a giant ice cube, but a continent with land that could eventually be exploited for resources.

This video contains the actual footage of Byrd’s 1954 interview where he discusses the “land beyond the pole” and its vast, untapped resources.

Would you like to know more about the Bunger Hills and why they actually stay melted, or would you like to dive into why people started the “Hollow Earth” rumors in the first place?

How Could it be ‘Ice Free’ in Antarctica?

It sounds like a total contradiction—how can the coldest place on Earth have areas of open water and dry land? It isn’t due to a hidden tropical sun; it’s actually a combination of physics, geology, and extreme weather.

These areas are officially called Antarctic Oases, and they stay ice-free through three main mechanisms:

1. The “Heat Sink” Effect (Albedo)

This is the most significant factor. Ice and snow have a high albedo, meaning they reflect about 80–90% of the sun’s energy back into space.

• The Break: If a small patch of dark rock is exposed (perhaps by wind), it does the opposite. Dark rock has a low albedo and absorbs the sun’s heat.
• The Loop: Even in sub-zero air, the rock can warm up enough to melt the snow around it. This exposes more rock, which absorbs more heat, creating a self-sustaining “melt zone.”

2. Katabatic Winds (The Giant Hairdryer)

Antarctica is home to katabatic winds—massively powerful gravity-driven winds that rush down from the high polar plateau toward the coast.

• These winds can reach speeds of over 300 km/h.
• In places like the McMurdo Dry Valleys, the winds are so powerful and persistent that they physically blow the snow away before it can accumulate.
• The air also heats up slightly as it descends (adiabatic heating), which causes any remaining moisture to evaporate instantly, leaving the ground bone-dry.

3. Geothermal Activity and Salt

In some specific spots, the “ice-free” nature comes from below or from the chemistry of the water:

• Geothermal Heat: Areas like Mount Erebus or Deception Island have volcanic activity. The ground is literally warm to the touch because of magma moving beneath the surface, creating caves and patches of bare ground.
• Hypersalinity: In places like Don Juan Pond (the saltiest body of water on Earth), the water is so saturated with salt that it cannot freeze, even at temperatures as low as -50°C.

The Reality of the “Oasis”

When Admiral Byrd saw these areas, he called them “oases,” but they aren’t lush. If you stood in the Bunger Hills today, you would see:

• Brown, jagged rock (mostly gneiss and granite).
• Deep blue lakes that are liquid in summer but often topped with a thin layer of ice in winter.
• Zero trees, grass, or shrubs. The only life is microscopic—algae, lichens, and cyanobacteria that live in the soil or the water.

It is “ice-free” in the sense that the ground is visible, which is a massive anomaly in a place where the ice is usually two miles thick. To a pilot like Byrd, seeing a brown hill in a sea of white was as shocking as seeing a forest in the middle of the Sahara.

Could People Survive There?

In a strictly “survival” sense—meaning staying alive for more than a few days without a massive supply chain from the outside world—the answer is no. While these “ice-free” oases look more hospitable than the surrounding ice sheets, they are actually some of the most hostile environments on the planet for human life.

The Survival Challenges

• Zero Food: There are no land animals, no edible plants, and no trees for fuel. Even in the “lush” Bunger Hills, the only life is microscopic algae and bacteria. You cannot hunt or forage; every single calorie you consume would have to be flown in.
• The “Desert” Problem: Despite being surrounded by ice, these oases are technically polar deserts. The air is incredibly dry. Without specialized equipment to melt ice or a complex filtration system for the salty lakes, you would actually die of dehydration quite quickly.
• Extreme Cold: “Ice-free” does not mean “warm.” While the rocks absorb sunlight in the summer (reaching maybe 5°C to 10°C), the winter temperatures still plummet to -40°C or lower. Without a permanent, high-tech structure, the wind chill alone would be fatal within minutes.

Can People Live There? (The “Research” Exception)

While you can’t survive there as a pioneer or settler, people do inhabit these areas using extreme technology.

In the Australian Antarctic Territory, research stations are often built specifically on these ice-free “oases” because the solid rock provides a stable foundation for buildings (as opposed to shifting ice).

Could we build a city there?

In theory, yes—but it would be more like a Moon base than a town.

1. Energy: You would need nuclear or massive wind/solar arrays.
2. Water: You would need industrial-scale desalination or ice-melting plants.
3. Food: Everything would have to be grown in hydroponic greenhouses.

The “Byrd” Connection

This is likely why Admiral Byrd was so excited about the “resources” rather than the “living” potential. He knew humans couldn’t live there like they do in Western Australia, but he realized that because the ice was gone, we could finally mine the coal and minerals hidden in the rock.

The Verdict: You could survive there if you had a billion-dollar budget and a constant stream of cargo ships. Without them, an “ice-free” oasis is just a very scenic place to freeze to death.

Surely Admiral Byrd Wasn’t Being that Cryptic on TV?

You’re right to be skeptical. Byrd was many things—a pioneer, a naval officer, and a media-savvy explorer—but he wasn’t exactly a “cryptic” poet. When he spoke on TV, he spoke with the tone of a Cold War-era strategist.

The “cryptic” feeling usually comes from how we interpret one specific sentence he said in that 1954 interview:

“Strangely enough, there’s a land area the size of the United States that’s never been seen by a human being. And that’s beyond the pole, on the other side of the south pole from Middle America.”

To a modern viewer, that sounds like he’s hinting at a hidden world. But in 1954, Byrd was speaking to a very specific audience about geopolitical survival, and his meaning was actually quite literal:

1. “Beyond the Pole” (A Navigator’s Term)

In 1954, the U.S. had mostly explored the side of Antarctica facing South America (West Antarctica). The “other side” (East Antarctica, where the Australian Antarctic Territory is) was almost entirely a blank spot on the map.

• To Byrd, “Beyond the Pole” simply meant the side of the continent we haven’t mapped yet. * It wasn’t a hidden dimension; it was just 5 million square miles of unmapped rock and ice that the U.S. didn’t want the Soviet Union to claim first.

2. The “United States” Comparison

When he said it was “the size of the United States,” he wasn’t being metaphorical. Antarctica is roughly 1.5 times the size of the U.S. By 1954, only about 25% of it had been seen from the air. He was literally telling the American public: “There is a landmass as big as our entire country that is still a ‘no-man’s land.’ We need to get there before our enemies do.”

3. Why the Mystery?

The reason he sounded so “hushed” or dramatic wasn’t because he found aliens—it was because he was fundraising. * Byrd was constantly trying to convince the U.S. Government to fund more expeditions.

• To get tax dollars, he had to make Antarctica sound like more than just a block of ice. He had to sell it as a “reservoir of resources” and a “strategic base.”
• Mentioning “ice-free” areas and “untouched resources” made the continent sound like a prize worth winning.

The “Game of Telephone”

The “cryptic” myth grew because, after Byrd died, his words were stripped of their 1950s context:

• Byrd meant: “We haven’t mapped the East Antarctic Plateau yet.”
• Internet Conspiracy meant: “He found a land that shouldn’t exist.”
• Byrd meant: “There are mountains and minerals under the ice.”
• Internet Conspiracy meant: “There is a lush jungle inside the Earth.”

Byrd was a straight-talking Admiral. He was excited about coal and landing strips, but 70 years of “telephone” has turned his excitement about geology into a legend about a hidden paradise.

If you watch the full interview, you’ll notice he spends most of the time talking about logistics, weather, and the Navy. It’s actually quite dry!

Why Would You Speak to them on TV? Surely that Would Be Saved for Other Venues?

That is a sharp observation. If a high-ranking Admiral had discovered a massive, resource-rich territory or a major strategic secret, your instinct is correct: he wouldn’t just “blurt it out” on a late-night talk show.

However, Byrd’s appearance on Longines Chronoscope wasn’t a slip of the tongue; it was a public relations campaign. To understand why he was on TV, you have to look at the unique “limbo” Antarctica was in during the 1950s.

1. The “Funding” War

Unlike the military’s secret weapons programs, Antarctic exploration was incredibly expensive and had no immediate “payoff.” Byrd was the face of these expeditions, and he had to constantly “sell” the continent to the American taxpayer to keep the budget alive.

• The Venue: In 1954, TV was the newest and most powerful way to reach the masses.
• The Pitch: He wasn’t revealing a secret; he was advertising. By telling the public there was a “land the size of the USA” full of “untouched resources,” he was making a case for why their tax dollars should keep going to the bottom of the world instead of into domestic programs.

2. Geopolitical “Flag-Planting”

In the 1950s, international law regarding who “owned” Antarctica was a mess. There was no Antarctic Treaty yet (that didn’t happen until 1959).

• Public Claim: By going on TV and stating that the U.S. was exploring these areas, he was effectively “staking a claim” in the court of public opinion.
• Signaling the Soviets: It was a way of telling the Soviet Union, “We know where the resources are, and we’re already there.” Doing it on TV made it a matter of national pride, making it harder for politicians to back out of the mission.

3. The “Open Secret”

Byrd’s “discoveries” weren’t actually classified at the time. The Bunger Hills (the ice-free area) had been photographed and reported in newspapers years earlier, in 1947.

• By 1954, he wasn’t leaking news; he was summarizing it for a general audience who hadn’t been paying attention to technical naval reports.
• He used dramatic language (“strangely enough,” “never been seen”) because he was a showman. He knew that “unmapped plateau” sounds boring, but “land beyond the pole” sounds like an adventure.

4. The “Admiral” as a Brand

Byrd was essentially the “Elon Musk” or “Neil Armstrong” of his day. He was a celebrity explorer. Just as NASA astronauts today go on talk shows to drum up interest in Mars missions, Byrd went on TV to keep the “Antarctic Dream” alive.

The Reality: The “Other Venues” you mentioned—the classified briefings and Pentagon meetings—did happen. But those meetings were about the how (logistics, base building). The TV appearance was about the why (convincing the public that the “Big Empty” was actually a “Big Prize”).

If he had truly found something world-shattering (like a “Hollow Earth” entrance), he likely would have been silenced, not given a microphone on a sponsored news program. He was there to sell a continent, not reveal a conspiracy.