World's space programs share the Vector symbol....why?

reply to post by Overload



You’re still picking out logos that fit your theory and ignoring the ones that don’t.

Again, as an example the ESA logo is an “e” and a dot inside a fingerprint like patterned circle;

zeus.nascom.nasa.gov...


Look at the others I mentioned, and many more, and a large portion have no resemblance to that symbol.

Here’s a list of space agencies;

en.wikipedia.org...


The reason for it’s prevalence in the rest has already been adequately explained; i.e. it’s culturally associated with movement and is the simplest representation of an aircraft (I even use it in my avatar) possible. I’d also add that as NASA uses it many will try to emulate that.

Looks like you have watched Jose Escamillia's "Moon Rising", where he addresses this very same issue. Google "Key of Solomon" and I think you might find some interesting connections. Several symbols incorporate these kind of images and are claimed to date back to King Solomon, though most attribue the "key" to the middle ages.

reply to post by Mike_A


LET ME BE CLEAR

I'm saying all of them have this connection. NOT ALL

Yes there are some that don't, and that is fine, but what about the 90% of space exploration that does, this is what is interesting. If only a couple had it, it wouldn't be much to talk about, but there is a large portion--MORE THAT DO THAN DO NOT- that have this logo

Why...I don't know, thus the purpose of this thread. Maybe they are not part of the club, I really don't know

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Overload]

ESA clearly has a vector:




I can make out a vector in the BNSC:




Columbian Space Commision:




It looks like most space agencies sneak or put this symbol into their logos. Very interesting!

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Thanks for the finds...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66234291c7f6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/35a95744faa8.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm not saying they all got'em....but geeezzz most of 'em do....

reply to post by Overload



Where are you getting this 90%? First it was all, then most, now 90%

I’ve been going through all of these and the figure I get is about 25%

Again, it’s cherry picking, you’ve already made your mind up as to what you want to see.

And as for the explanation for the use of this symbol in those that use it, what’s wrong with the explanations that have been posted?


hotbakedtater,


You’re struggling to find what you want to find, stretching the criteria to such vagueness that anything can be said to conform to them. By the OP’s criteria these logos clearly do not follow the same pattern.

reply to post by Mike_A


ALSO..... Only a hand full of countries have the capability to launch,operate, and maintain manned flights, satellites, ect.

Go here and scroll down and see for your self.....
source

Of the countries that do what we do(NASA), they have the vector.

It seems that the countries lagging behind in the space race, do not have it(YET).

Maybe that is a hint so to speak.....

You’re still picking out logos that fit your theory and ignoring the ones that don’t.

I'm saying the guys that actually go into space--Manned flights

Not the little 3rd world country in Africa that just launched there first satellite....

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Overload]

Wow. People are suspicious that aerospace-related entities tend to incorporate aerospace related meta-themes like wings, arrows, orbits, rockets, etc into their artwork? Really? I'd be suspicious if they didn't..

It seems more likely that somebody needed to make-up some phony "conspiracy" in order to pad-out their latest blockbuster DVD.

reply to post by Overload


You’re moving the goal posts again. First it was all space agencies, then it was 90% of all of them, then it was just most, now it’s just those capable of manned space flight. It’s ridiculous.

Considering only three agencies do this anyway no significant pattern can be claimed; two thirds of them also have red in the logo, is that significant? Of course not.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by IAttackPeople


I would tend to aggree with you, but there are a lot of questions about these common themes, also the big question of why so many countries are spending billions to go to the moon when there isnt supposed to be anything there. Questioning the space program that is supposed to be a civilian entity but in reality is a military operation and questioning cymbols they use and their masonic origins are important. It keeps those in charge aware that they are being watched by those who pay their bills.

Very interesting.

Here is one very famous logo from science fiction


Seems Mr Roddenberry knew something.

So, basically people. If you think there is no connection...then you believe its all just coincidence.

I can handle the fact that it may be nothing, and thats just fine with me.

However, one does have to wonder why such similar logos with countries that are NOT allies in any way.

I think that to say aerospace and V shaped logos go together is a bit far. I'm not saying there is some grand conspiracy, but I think there is a little more than just a coincidence. I can think of a million different logos to use, but yet they use the same feature in the ones shown. Isn't that a little odd...I mean, if your a country trying to show your spaceflight independence, are you gonna copy some logo from another country??? or incorporate similar features into your own, why would you do that? Wouldn't you want your own space program to stand out from the rest?

So, basically people. If you think there is no connection...then you believe its all just coincidence.

No, the reason for its use is that it is culturally associated with movement and direction, it is the simplest representation of an aircraft and it is widely recognised as being associated with aerospace activities due to prior use by organisations such as NASA. This latter point partially addresses your question as to why anyone would want to emulate another’s logo; additionally it is also a way of piggy backing on their reputation. That technique is used in marketing all the time. It’s also the case that logos trying to convey similar messages will come up with similar designs; as they have a prior requirement to be fairly simple (easy to remember, visualise and reproduce) this will inevitably lead to similarities emerging. Here’s a link with a few examples of this:

www.logodesignlove.com...

It's not a conspiracy or anything strange but that doesn't mean it has to be a coincidence.

Being allies or not is irrelevant.

NASA's symbol?

We call it the meatball.

The story is it's a hypersonic wing, but I have a better explanation.

It's Kepler's Law of Orbital Dynamics.

If it is a variation of the Greek letter Lamda, we find:

In astrophysics, the likelihood that a small body will encounter a planet or dwarf planet leading to a deflection of a particular magnitude. An object with a large value is expected to have cleared its neighborhood, satisfying the current definition of a planet.

It is also Einstein's symbol for the Cosmological Constant...

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Chakotay]

reply to post by Mike_A


I do agree that logo's get piggy backed and all that.....

But why would the Air Force's space program's logo's be similar as well.

They've got about 20 of'em, all with the vector. Who are they trying to impress?

reply to post by Overload

Who are they trying to impress?

One posibility:

Jose' Escamilla followers.

reply to post by Overload


Because it’s a common symbol associated with that field, it’s like saying why do so many gas companies use a flame in their logos?

Also, you say that the USAF has 20 patches/logos, whatever that use a vector symbol; but how many don’t? One of the main points I’ve been trying to make throughout this is that you can’t just look at the evidence that fits your view. It may seem as though that’s a lot of vector’s but not if there are 1000+ different logos that don’t have it.

I know of at least one aerospace firm that doesn't use a vector in its logo:


www.jpaerospace.com...




But then, they're a bit "different" in a lot of ways.


(The company logo incorporates the initials of its founder and a stylized interpetation of the symbol for infinity; symbolizing the firm's philosophy of utilizing existing technology, in innovative ways, to achieve low-cost space solutions)



As to the use of the vector-shape in the design of its spacecraft....That's another matter altogether!

reply to post by Overload


To me it just shows the lack of imagination and originality.