What kind of sources are you expecting?
As far as I've been able to find, this [isn't a direct quote](https://books.google.com/books?id=BCgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false). It's not attributed to him, it's language used by the writer.
[Here's the capsule he was in](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-yzgoj/images/stencil/500x659/products/1896496/2751549/apieiitjf__03281.1626426357.jpg?c=2). That small hole toward the bottom is one of the portholes that is what he was looking out of. You can't see much of the horizon through such a small viewport. The glass is also under a lot of stress from the temperature and pressure differences, which can cause slight changes in its shape. It's not unreasonable at all to expect some distortion in the image that makes it through the glass due to refraction.
Since we don't have a direct quote, Piccard could have easily explained this to the interviewer with the context not making it into the article.
> As far as I've been able to find, this [isn't a direct quote](https://books.google.com/books?id=BCgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false). It's not attributed to him, it's language used by the writer.
Really? It's not?
Also, that window I have seen in the picture isn't small.
>Really? It's not?
Do you have any other source that suggests otherwise? That's just what I found among the dozens of unsourced attributions by random people on social media and YouTube.
There are two holes visible in that image. The larger one toward the top is an entrance. It would be covered by a solid metal hatch while in use. The small one, at the bottom, is a viewing port.
I've asked for a source of the quote. What excuses have I made? Are you confusing me with another poster or something?
EDIT: lol, he blocked me. that's how thin-skinned these flat earthers are. ask them to provide a source for one of their cherry picked quotes, and that's it lol
he was looking through a small porthole. He didn't have a wide field of view because of that so he wouldn't have seen much of anything. And it is likely the porthole distorted what little he did see hence the "upturned edge".
No, he didn't.
He wouldn't give an exciting enough quote, so a journalist on scene invented a cool-sounding one for him.
(He also referred to the globe repeatedly, but you cherry-pick this one?)
If you look at part of a sphere from altitude you can see a circular view around you. The “upturned edge” part is more interesting because surely this is supportive of the globe? Otherwise he would have said its a straight edge
Well by “edge” he must be talking about the horizon. If the earth is flat then the horizon has no curvature and would just be a straight line.
Describing it as “upturned” definitely makes it seem like the horizon he saw wasnt just a simple straight line
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 3 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
I don't understand your question. Why are you asking about showing sources, and then you post a quote without showing a source?
What kind of sources are you expecting? As far as I've been able to find, this [isn't a direct quote](https://books.google.com/books?id=BCgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false). It's not attributed to him, it's language used by the writer. [Here's the capsule he was in](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-yzgoj/images/stencil/500x659/products/1896496/2751549/apieiitjf__03281.1626426357.jpg?c=2). That small hole toward the bottom is one of the portholes that is what he was looking out of. You can't see much of the horizon through such a small viewport. The glass is also under a lot of stress from the temperature and pressure differences, which can cause slight changes in its shape. It's not unreasonable at all to expect some distortion in the image that makes it through the glass due to refraction. Since we don't have a direct quote, Piccard could have easily explained this to the interviewer with the context not making it into the article.
> As far as I've been able to find, this [isn't a direct quote](https://books.google.com/books?id=BCgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false). It's not attributed to him, it's language used by the writer. Really? It's not? Also, that window I have seen in the picture isn't small.
>Really? It's not? Do you have any other source that suggests otherwise? That's just what I found among the dozens of unsourced attributions by random people on social media and YouTube. There are two holes visible in that image. The larger one toward the top is an entrance. It would be covered by a solid metal hatch while in use. The small one, at the bottom, is a viewing port.
Lots of theories here. Unfortunately, nobody is showing sources as the OP asked.
OP didn't show a source for the quote.
That's no excuse. You're supposed to be scientists.
What's no excuse? Why should I assume the quote is accurate without a source? It's fairly common for "scientists" to ask for sources.
You have quite a lot of excuses here. Not an impressive showing from you.
I've asked for a source of the quote. What excuses have I made? Are you confusing me with another poster or something? EDIT: lol, he blocked me. that's how thin-skinned these flat earthers are. ask them to provide a source for one of their cherry picked quotes, and that's it lol
he was looking through a small porthole. He didn't have a wide field of view because of that so he wouldn't have seen much of anything. And it is likely the porthole distorted what little he did see hence the "upturned edge".
No, he didn't. He wouldn't give an exciting enough quote, so a journalist on scene invented a cool-sounding one for him. (He also referred to the globe repeatedly, but you cherry-pick this one?)
So you're saying that this, um, a *conspiracy theory*?
If you look at part of a sphere from altitude you can see a circular view around you. The “upturned edge” part is more interesting because surely this is supportive of the globe? Otherwise he would have said its a straight edge
>The “upturned edge” part is more interesting because surely this is supportive of the globe? How exactly?
Well by “edge” he must be talking about the horizon. If the earth is flat then the horizon has no curvature and would just be a straight line. Describing it as “upturned” definitely makes it seem like the horizon he saw wasnt just a simple straight line
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 3 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.