So basically it's like the Truman show were he sailing then he eventually hits a wall

That's what the loonies on here would have you believe.

I'm a ridiculously unfit asthmatic that smokes and drinks too much, but I reckon I could stick on a pair of cramp on's and scale forty six metres of ice (after a few attempts) if I thought it was the end of the Earth.

Again, Flat Stanley, how old is the Earth?

Is it around six thousand years old?

Now, now. You know very well your questions make his head hurt.

Here is something to make Stan's brain explode.

Set off and travel in a straight line for 10,000km.
Very carefully make a 90 degree right turn, then go another 10,000km
Very carefully make another 90 degree right turn, then go another 10,000km

If the Earth was flat, you would have made 3 sides of a square, and would be 10,000 miles away from your starting point.

Meanwhile back on our planet, you would have made a triangle, with 3 right-angled corners, and would be back where you started.

Because you are on a globe. It couldn't work any other way. Like sohttps://i.imgur.com/NGhcAAJ.png" >

Game. Set. Match.

That would have looked even better if the three sides were labeled in turn .... game ... set ... match!

Samuel Rowbotham could have saved himself a lot of time whilst steamrollering his opponents if he'd considered that.
He could have crawled away and died then and his weak-minded adherents could have moved on to unprovable things.
What's that? They did anyway?

Just out of interest. What benefit would it provide anyone to trick others into believing the World wasn't flat?

rlIt's not too late for Christmasrl
Note the reviews ... E. Cooke looks familiar.

That's exactly what I thought

This is fundamentally a war between religion (nutjobism) and science.
Nutjobism feels threatened.

Reply for Stanley ...in his absence.
Eni fule no that you can't get three 90 degree angles inside a triangle.
Take that earthling!

You should quote my post, as otherwise our mate Stan won't see it. He has blocked me as he can't stand simple, reasonable questions, but still I look on it as a favour to try to get the poor lad's neurons firing again

There are several possibilities here.

One - Mugwump is correct, and Flat Stanley is a troll; in which case, you're all falling for it hook like and sinker.

Two - Flat Stanley is delusional; in which case you're all cyber-bullies.

Three - Flat Stanley is right, you're all sheeple, and it really is turtles all the way down.

For a start off, Stanley is not a troll.
I thought he was a wind-up merchant very early doors, but he is consistent over myriad posts, even telling Mugwump he was wrong in his assertion that he (Stanley) only believes part of what he (Stanley ) posts.
He has of course got the trump card of pretending it was all a hoax should he want an exit strategy with his perceived dignity intact.
It's another judgement.
Can a person really believe this stuff?
I believe they can and he does.
I don't believe anyone could keep this up with such a consistent level of ignorance and poor spelling.
It fits in perfectly with illogical thinking, cluttered and disorganised.
He's the real deal for me.

As for bullying, come on, the guy is an insult machine.
I personally avoid name calling as it's poor practice IMHO.

Finally, he 'ain't right, so that's a non-starter.

Seymour Hersh's latest expose regarding Syria is very interesting. www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-2 ... -obama-cia

Seymour Hersh's latest expose regarding Syria is very interesting. www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-2 ... -obama-cia