Perhaps not.

Search the internet for the highest waterfall in the world and you’ll find countless declarations that Angel Falls holds the title, along with a ridiculous number of monetized sites with titles like “10 Highest Waterfalls in the World”—most of them placing Angel Falls at the top.

Every reference I’ve seen that claims Angel Falls as the tallest can be traced back to one source: a 1949 expedition to the falls organized and led by photojournalist Ruth Robertson. Every. Single. One. If the measurements made on that expedition were accurate, then Angel Falls is indeed the highest. What I find odd is that there appears to have been no serious effort since then to verify those findings.

Robertson’s epic journey involved hardships unimaginable to the waterfallers of today, but visiting Angel Falls now is a simple matter of booking a tour. So why hasn’t there been a modern effort to measure the falls?

Some of those “Top 10” sites are truly pathetic. One lists Denmark Strait as the highest. Okay, fine—even though it’s an underwater waterfall and the site gets the height measurement way off.

Angel Falls is number two, and Tugela Falls in South Africa is number three. Then the waterfall world falls apart, with Victoria Falls listed at number four—350 feet high, according to the site. Seriously? North Carolina alone has several falls higher than Victoria. And the site removes the last remaining shred of credibility with its number six pick for the highest waterfall in the world: Niagara Falls, listed at 188 feet.

Even a cursory amount of online research would clearly reveal the absurdity of all this, including the questionable Angel Falls designation.

So, I’m going to set the record straight, right? I wish.

With North Carolina’s waterfalls, I can make statements based on firsthand experience, knowledge, and research. In disputing the claim that Whitewater Falls is the highest in the state, I measured the waterfall myself. I can’t do that with most of the world’s waterfalls. But neither can anyone else.

I take most reported waterfall heights with a grain of salt. Who measured them? When? What method was used? What did they determine to be the top and bottom points?

Admittedly, for most waterfalls, we’ll never get those answers. In many, if not most cases, the stated height is an estimate rather than an accurate measurement.

What do we know about Angel Falls?

Robertson’s party included two engineers who measured the waterfall: Perry Lowrey, the principal engineer, and his assistant Alejandro Laime. Lowrey’s report lists “the first main drop” at 2,648 feet and “the total height of the waterfall” at 3,212 feet. The latter figure is what has been cited ever since to claim Angel Falls as the tallest in the world.

According to Robertson’s account of the expedition in the November 1949 issue of The National Geographic Magazine, “There was one more day’s work for Perry, measuring angles from every conceivable spot in the canyon floor. It was ticklish business wading the swift Churún to get to the opposite side with his heavy theodolite and all the other necessary instruments.”

This, along with other accounts Robertson wrote in Churún Merú - The Tallest Angel, indicates that the engineers took their work seriously and knew what they were doing. I emphasize this because a photo in the National Geographic article of the theodolite they used suggests that the point they chose for the base of the falls was a considerable distance downstream from what most observers would consider the base. Specifically, the tripod is set up on the Churún River, with the caption stating: “Nearly two miles away water gushes from the cliff face in a single drop of more than half a mile.”

Angel Falls is not on the Churún itself, but rather on a tributary of it. Presumably, Perry measured the elevation drop from the top of the falls all the way down to the Churún to arrive at the 3,212 feet figure.

Why? Topographical data clearly shows a considerable distance below the big drop. The stream loses a lot of elevation in that distance, and I would certainly consider some of it as part of the waterfall, but it doesn’t appear that the entire distance could be part of the singular Angel Falls.

That said, if the true base of the falls is placed where the contour lines begin to tighten—rather than at the confluence with the Churún—the total height would likely remain fairly close to 3,212 feet. But would the difference be enough to remove Angel Falls from the top spot on the list of the world’s highest waterfalls?

The 2,648 calculation for the main drop does appear to be accurate. This figure, not in dispute as far as I know, makes Angel Falls the tallest single drop in the world.

But is it the highest overall?

First, I know too little about the other contenders—or how they were measured—to make a definitive claim. Second, to return to the idea of relying on firsthand experience, knowledge, and research: everything I’ve said here comes from other accounts and from studying maps, photos, and videos—admittedly, lots of them.

Robertson’s account of the expedition is incredibly detailed, but not in the manner one would need to answer these kinds of questions; Perry’s notes appear to be lost to time; I can find no attempt to measure the falls since the 1949 expedition; and the available topographical data for this part of the world—at least what I’ve seen—doesn’t appear to be very accurate.

So, for now, I’m not comfortable making a definitive claim. I’ll only say that the claim of Angel Falls being the world’s highest waterfall seems questionable.

Angel Falls is on my bucket list, and I intend to cross it off. One day, I’ll be back with something more definitive.

Want more until then? World Waterfall Database has an excellent discussion about the measurement of Angel Falls. Bryan Swan and Dean Goss, who run the site, are far more competent than I at analyzing mapping data. Also, I highly recommend Churún Merú - The Tallest Angel, by Ruth Robertson. The book chronicles not only her famed expedition to Angel Falls, but many of her other experiences in Venezuela.

(See M058 on "Citations" page for photo credit.)