evidence of abrasion included frayed and unraveling portions of the cable’s armor and vertical grooves in the rock apparently cut by the cable. The greatest incision and armor damage occurred on ledges between spans in irregular rock outcrop areas. Unlike the nearshore rocky region, neither the rocks nor the cable appeared damaged along outcrops on Pioneer Seamount. Multiple loops of slack cable added during a 1997 cable repair operation were found lying flat on the seafloor. Several sharp kinks in the cable were seen at 240 m water depths in an area subjected to intense trawling activity. Most of the cable has become buried with time in sediment substrates on the continental shelf whereas much of the cable remains exposed in sediments at deeper depths. The cable is exposed in rocky environments of the nearshore region and on all of Pioneer Seamount. The main biological features associated with the cable were organisms utilizing the cable as substrate and occasionally as shelter. Considerable care was taken to count megafauna in video transects and macrofauna from the top 5 cm of push cores. Few differences were found between cable and control sites at the 95% confidence level. Anemones Metridium farcimen and Stomphia sp. colonized the cable and were more abundant in cable transects at most soft sediment sites. Coarse extrapolation of the transect data suggest that more than 5,000 M. farcimen may live on the continental shelf portion of the cable. Several other species of anemones living on the cable are common along deeper sections of the cable route. Where the cable was buried, the presence of linear rows of sea anemones proved to be a reliable indicator of the cable’s position. Flatfish and rockfish apparently congregate near the cable and were as much as 1 order of magnitude more abundant near the cable at some sites.
I have long wondered how they managed to stretch communications cables across the entire Atlantic or Pacific ocean.
I cannot say I know much about it. Just shared some of what I researched.
It would be interesting to find what percentage of internet traffic and communications occurs via these oceanic cables versus satellites.
I'm not convinced of flat earth theory or the dome, but I find these theories interesting at least. One thing that boggles my mind is that the earth and moon are supposedly both spinning, and the moon spinning around the earth, but we are to believe that they spin at some kind of absolutely perfect rate to guarantee we only ever see one side of the moon? That right there seems bogus to me.
I wonder if we could zoom in on sun and see if we are only seeing one side of the sun. perhaps by analyzing these "sunspots" and trying to identify patterns.
Jesus christ, you guys are fucking dumb. Have you no comprehension of how slow satellite internet is? Have you not researched the COST and the SPEED????
99.999% of all communications are using undersea cables because it's a fraction of the cost of launching and maintaining a satalight.
Fuck, you guys are beyond pathetic. Just lazy dolts who don't know shit.
One thing the video mentions that coincides with flat earth but is not overtly stated; the sea cables are layed out in a way that makes more sense on a flat earth map than on a globe. Notice the FE sea cable map in the video. For instance, there are no cables that run from Australia to South America because they are on opposite ends of the plane. Instead they are routed from Australia to West coast USA to South America. Also this video states that 99% of intercontinental communication takes place through these cables, and I've heard similar figures from other sources. Orbiting Satellites are completely unnecessary for our world wide network. Also a flat earth with a dome explains how radio frequencies can be transmitted from USA to AU, which should be inconceivable on a globe as the radio waves would have to bouce between the surface and the ionosphere many times to make it around the sphere.
Ya as a flat earther it's impossible to say what the sun and moon exactly are. I find it much easier to point out what they aren't. Perhaps if we had Nasa's budget we could get more difinitive answers lmao.
Watch the video. As far as you can tell, all you see is a light in the sky and you don't know it's speed, altitude, size or shape. The video shows helium balloon satellites, and solar powered drones, and high altitude planes. In addition living on a flat earth with a solid firmament, would explain why you can bounce radio waves from USA to Australia (impossible on a sphere). Also a firmament would explain technology like project bluebeam where you can project images in the sky. Sightings of the ISS from amateur telescopes look oddly holographic. The line of satellites everyone thinks is starlink could be any of these options.
Again, every picture I've seen (of the ISS from earth) looks like a projection to me. I think its the result of 'project bluebeam'. And if we indeed have a firmament, this would mean we have a solid surface in the sky that could be projected on to. However, I dont believe the ISS is orbiting in space because of the sheer number of green screen, cgi, and harness fails they have had filming inside or on 'spacewalks'. Also I can barely see a jumbo jet 7 miles high with the naked eye, the ISS is about the same size, how would I see it 250 miles high?
Why do you believe the ISS is real, and orbiting the earth 250 miles high every 90 minutes?
First let me say that looking through your post history you seem to only comment the way a fed shill would, so I hope you are getting paid.
2nd, I've had a projector before, you can shine it on all sorts of surfaces and produce an image. So your characterization of the firmament is retarded.
3rd, answer the question I posed to you.
4th, I hope you are staying on top of your booster shots.
That's amazing, you can look in the night sky and tell the size, speed, trajectory, and features of any object up there. Wow it's like your brain and eyes are a military targeting system. Incredible
Kaaarrll, how do you know the size, speed, and altitude of the object you are looking at in the night sky? Did you go up to the ISS in a shuttle and clock it's speed?
"Wikipedia puts the ISS altitude at around 400 km. Using this for the distance, I get an orbital velocity of 6,576 meters per second (14,710 mph). That's not bad! Checking my result online, I see that the listed orbital speed is 7,600 meters per second, so I'm off by about 15 percent."
Hes looking at the angular size of the object. This means the object can be any size that fits within that angle. It could be extremely huge and 100k miles away, or it could be a tiny drone 50k feet high. This does nothing to prove the distance or size of the object. It's still assumed that nasa isn't lying about those things.
11:10 - yeah fuck wits - if the earth were flat, radio signals would prevail since it would be far cheaper than laying cables. They just detected radio signals from a distant galaxy, so we know radio signals travel extremely far -especially in a vacuum of space.
But since there is this annoying curve in the earth, radio signals have to bounce off the stratosphere to get around the earth, which is hit-and-miss. Any amateur radio operator will tell you such.
Sometimes you just have to face the facts that flat earthers are the biggest fucking douchbags out there. Completely incompetent shit for brains, morons.
Guidelines on Best Environmental Practice (BEP) in Cable Laying and Operation https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2017/12-02e_agreement_cables_guidelines.pdf
Environmental Impact of a Submarine Cable: Case Study of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)/ Pioneer Seamount Cable https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253455724_Environmental_Impact_of_a_Submarine_Cable_Case_Study_of_the_Acoustic_Thermometry_of_Ocean_Climate_ATOC_Pioneer_Seamount_Cable
Sustainable Development:Submarine Cables In The Marine Environment https://www.ecomagazine.com/in-depth/sustainable-development-submarine-cables-in-the-marine-environment
Telecommunication line infrastructure and the Arctic environment: past, present and future https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/polar-record/article/abs/telecommunication-line-infrastructure-and-the-arctic-environment-past-present-and-future/85AB118A084835BF73BF1B063D9DD107
Do you draw any conclusions or speculation from this?
I have long wondered how they managed to stretch communications cables across the entire Atlantic or Pacific ocean.
I cannot say I know much about it. Just shared some of what I researched.
It would be interesting to find what percentage of internet traffic and communications occurs via these oceanic cables versus satellites.
I'm not convinced of flat earth theory or the dome, but I find these theories interesting at least. One thing that boggles my mind is that the earth and moon are supposedly both spinning, and the moon spinning around the earth, but we are to believe that they spin at some kind of absolutely perfect rate to guarantee we only ever see one side of the moon? That right there seems bogus to me.
I wonder if we could zoom in on sun and see if we are only seeing one side of the sun. perhaps by analyzing these "sunspots" and trying to identify patterns.
Jesus christ, you guys are fucking dumb. Have you no comprehension of how slow satellite internet is? Have you not researched the COST and the SPEED????
99.999% of all communications are using undersea cables because it's a fraction of the cost of launching and maintaining a satalight.
Fuck, you guys are beyond pathetic. Just lazy dolts who don't know shit.
Ya so why do you think satellites exist?
They don't. Everything is just a simulation and fake, just like your gay brain.
to fool normie tards
One thing the video mentions that coincides with flat earth but is not overtly stated; the sea cables are layed out in a way that makes more sense on a flat earth map than on a globe. Notice the FE sea cable map in the video. For instance, there are no cables that run from Australia to South America because they are on opposite ends of the plane. Instead they are routed from Australia to West coast USA to South America. Also this video states that 99% of intercontinental communication takes place through these cables, and I've heard similar figures from other sources. Orbiting Satellites are completely unnecessary for our world wide network. Also a flat earth with a dome explains how radio frequencies can be transmitted from USA to AU, which should be inconceivable on a globe as the radio waves would have to bouce between the surface and the ionosphere many times to make it around the sphere.
Ya as a flat earther it's impossible to say what the sun and moon exactly are. I find it much easier to point out what they aren't. Perhaps if we had Nasa's budget we could get more difinitive answers lmao.
Sure in the sky. Not in space
What's keeping them up in the sky?
Gravity.
Care to elaborate? Gravite acting in which direction?
no, gravity doesn't exist
You don't exist. You are nothing. You are a loser. You are pathetic. You are dumb as a rock.
Watch the video. As far as you can tell, all you see is a light in the sky and you don't know it's speed, altitude, size or shape. The video shows helium balloon satellites, and solar powered drones, and high altitude planes. In addition living on a flat earth with a solid firmament, would explain why you can bounce radio waves from USA to Australia (impossible on a sphere). Also a firmament would explain technology like project bluebeam where you can project images in the sky. Sightings of the ISS from amateur telescopes look oddly holographic. The line of satellites everyone thinks is starlink could be any of these options.
You can literally see the ISS with a strong enough telescope and make out it's shape and components.
Explain that.
Again, every picture I've seen (of the ISS from earth) looks like a projection to me. I think its the result of 'project bluebeam'. And if we indeed have a firmament, this would mean we have a solid surface in the sky that could be projected on to. However, I dont believe the ISS is orbiting in space because of the sheer number of green screen, cgi, and harness fails they have had filming inside or on 'spacewalks'. Also I can barely see a jumbo jet 7 miles high with the naked eye, the ISS is about the same size, how would I see it 250 miles high?
Why do you believe the ISS is real, and orbiting the earth 250 miles high every 90 minutes?
So you think the firmament is a giant digital screen?
First let me say that looking through your post history you seem to only comment the way a fed shill would, so I hope you are getting paid.
2nd, I've had a projector before, you can shine it on all sorts of surfaces and produce an image. So your characterization of the firmament is retarded.
3rd, answer the question I posed to you.
4th, I hope you are staying on top of your booster shots.
No, YOU don't know because you're a fucking idiot. The rest of the world knows ya fucking loser.
Just because you are an idiot, does not make the rest of the world one too. You live in a fantasy camp for idiots.
Kill yourself now.
That's amazing, you can look in the night sky and tell the size, speed, trajectory, and features of any object up there. Wow it's like your brain and eyes are a military targeting system. Incredible
they are balloons, so air
The ISS is moving at 7.6km per second.
How is a balloon doing that?
Kaaarrll, how do you know the size, speed, and altitude of the object you are looking at in the night sky? Did you go up to the ISS in a shuttle and clock it's speed?
https://www.wired.com/story/measure-the-speed-of-the-iss-with-your-iphone/
Here you go. Find a flaw please.
"Wikipedia puts the ISS altitude at around 400 km. Using this for the distance, I get an orbital velocity of 6,576 meters per second (14,710 mph). That's not bad! Checking my result online, I see that the listed orbital speed is 7,600 meters per second, so I'm off by about 15 percent."
Hes looking at the angular size of the object. This means the object can be any size that fits within that angle. It could be extremely huge and 100k miles away, or it could be a tiny drone 50k feet high. This does nothing to prove the distance or size of the object. It's still assumed that nasa isn't lying about those things.
11:10 - yeah fuck wits - if the earth were flat, radio signals would prevail since it would be far cheaper than laying cables. They just detected radio signals from a distant galaxy, so we know radio signals travel extremely far -especially in a vacuum of space.
But since there is this annoying curve in the earth, radio signals have to bounce off the stratosphere to get around the earth, which is hit-and-miss. Any amateur radio operator will tell you such.
Sometimes you just have to face the facts that flat earthers are the biggest fucking douchbags out there. Completely incompetent shit for brains, morons.
I think fiber optic cable will have a bit more bandwidth and reliability lmao, great point retard.
Ohhh wooow, radio signals from a distant galaxy! How the fuck would you know!? I bet you love all neil defgrassi Tysons BS.