|
Post by nightfever on Jan 24, 2012 16:43:21 GMT -4
I am an Apollo conspiracy theorist, and have devoted most of my research on this subject to the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing rather than the scientific aspect. I recently found out that the flag of the Holy See was taken up in the supposed moon mission along with the American flag. Since the flag and show of American pride was in many ways a boasting of US power, might, and influence, would the inclusion of a Vatican flag symbolize Jesuit/Papal world domination and complicity in the moon hoax? For those that don't believe in conspiracies, just open your mind for this question and theorize
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 24, 2012 16:45:47 GMT -4
Which Moon mission took this flag?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2012 16:47:45 GMT -4
Well for a start, you are making the assumption that there was a hoax, the science says otherwise. Instead of looking into the "social and cultural aspects" you need to look at the "scientific aspect" to get a good understanding of why it was real and not a hoax.
Second, what was your source of the claim that a flag of the Holy See was taken up, and on which "moon mission"? There were 9 lunar missions, six of which landed on it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2012 16:54:38 GMT -4
So I did some more investigation. 135 national flags were taken to the moon on Apollo 11, and then sent to their respective nations with a small lunar sample. The flag of Vatican City was just one of the 135. www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_apollo11.htmlSo to answer the question posed in the OP: No, unless you believe that the other 134 nations had their flags up there for the same reason. It also counters your assumption that Apollo and the US Flag were "a boasting of US power, might, and influence" in that their carrying of the 135 nation flags was a message (like the plaque left behind that reads "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all Mankind") that the mission was representative of ALL nations and mankind, not just a single nation trying to show off.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 24, 2012 16:56:55 GMT -4
How could a Vatican flag be taken on a mission that you claim did not occur?
Before I open my mind, I'd like to have a idea of what I'm inviting in.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 17:07:01 GMT -4
As it happens, I know more about the political and social aspects of the Apollo missions than the science, and the idea that there was a hoax is still ludicrous.
And yes, "for all mankind" is a phrase you might want to contemplate.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2012 17:07:39 GMT -4
Just one final note. The Flag was for the Vatican City State, which is not, and should not be confused with the Holy See.
Sooooooo, are we done here?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 20:29:24 GMT -4
I am an Apollo conspiracy theorist, and have devoted most of my research on this subject to the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing rather than the scientific aspect. Regardless of how you categorize it, you're either dealing with facts or you are not. People often want to focus only on one aspect of the record in question because they don't have any answers for the rest of it. Only the so-called official story explains all the relevant facts. Saying that you limit the scope of your research is probably getting off on the wrong foot here. Along with many other flags from many other countries. We went in peace for all mankind. That includes Catholics. Not to me, but go ahead and make your case. Open-mindedness does not involve accepting speculation as equivalent to fact. If you'd like to present fact, that would be most useful. If you'd like to speculate, just label it as such.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 24, 2012 20:41:36 GMT -4
Nightfever said in his first post here that he believed "most aspects of the Apollo story." This thread would seem to contradict that statement.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 24, 2012 20:49:36 GMT -4
I have open my mind to some engineers doing stuff and landed on the moon. Seems to fit quite well. If I close my mind then I can deny that they landed, but I cannot.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 24, 2012 21:31:59 GMT -4
I have open my mind to some engineers doing stuff and landed on the moon. Seems to fit quite well. If I close my mind then I can deny that they landed, but I cannot. I second that.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 25, 2012 0:09:43 GMT -4
Nightfever said in his first post here that he believed "most aspects of the Apollo story." This thread would seem to contradict that statement. He also says in his profile that he's 18 years old, which makes me suspect that the length of time he has had to research the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing (rather than the scientific, of course) must be fairly limited. He makes the mistake that a number of HBs do - he claims that the US would have had a reason to fake the Moon landings if they were not possible to do in real life, and then takes that alleged motive to be proof that they must have been fake. It's sort of like saying to someone, "Your great-uncle wrote a will leaving you a million dollars. That's a motive, and you're clearly guilty of his murder!" without actually finding out if Great-Uncle is actually dead.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 25, 2012 6:08:18 GMT -4
To carry the metaphor further, there would have been a witness who notably didn't like you very much, in fact was a noted rivel and would have had every reason to squeal on you, but hasn't. I refer of course to the former USSR. If the US cared enough to fake it, than the USSR would have cared enough to reveal said hoax, yet never did.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 25, 2012 7:48:57 GMT -4
I am an Apollo conspiracy theorist, and have devoted most of my research on this subject to the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing rather than the scientific aspect. Unfortunately it is to the scientific aspect that one must look to determine if it was indeed a hoax in the first place. Social and cultural aspects may furnish you with potential motives or ideas, but only the technical side can furnish the data required to assess the veracity of the Apollo program. After all, motives and implications are meaningless if no hoax actually took place. The supposed moon mission? Which one? This is the problem with many conspiracy theorists: they don't know that there was more than just the one landing with Neil Armstrong. The manned element of the Apollo program consisted of eleven manned flights: two in Earth orbit, two in lunar orbit, and seven planned landings of which six were successful. On which of these was the flag supposed to have been taken up? Not unless the flags of other nations that were also taken are similarly indicative of a worldwide hoax, but then if all those nations took part in the hoax, who is there left to fool? I did so, and I cannot make any possible explanation besides the offical one fit the facts. I have been considering aspects of the Apollo hoax for over a decade now. None make as much or more sense as the official record of events. Frankly most make less sense than a Japanese VCR instruction manual...
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 25, 2012 10:34:47 GMT -4
All the rambling about "social and cultural" issues supporting the hoax theory are worthless if you cannot prove that there was a hoax in the first place. So, unfortunately, you need to get into that icky science stuff if you want to be taken seriously. Sorry if that's not your cup of tea.
And if you're into "social and cultural" analysis, have you considered the mentality of people in the late 1950's and 1960's? These people had seen technology grow from the Wright Brothers' first aircraft to jet fighters in 40 years. It included the generation who had beaten Hitler, AND harnessed the power of the atom. THey were confident they could do *anything* that they put their mind to. Go to the Moon? Why fake it, we can do it! It'll be a grand adventure! And if some astronauts' lives are put at risk, well, we're not lacking for volunteers who *like* taking risks.
It alwasy astonishes me that HBs believe that the risks for manned space flight would have been too daunting to both pilots and administrators, when you consider the willing ness of those pilots and administrators to risk the lives of sub-orbital test pilots without flinching, and to take terrible losses.
|
|