re: You Moon landing deniers are all complete idiots...

quote:

---

To build a compelling case to not be deemed crazy propagandists, the Soviets would have needed independent verification and technical expertise/infrastructure.

---

They had lunar satellites. Some even landed on the moon and returned. In case you really needed them to independently verify

quote:

---

Are you high?

---

Is someone documenting all the Stupids in this thread. I'll need a list at the end.

quote:

---

Riddle me this Batman: Are you actually saying the Russians were unable to track LIVE communications broadcast from the Moon? You think that was all faked, pre-recorded broadcasts from the Moon? You Dolt.

---

The technology to do this and provide an argument strong enough to be compelling didn’t exist until 2009. Again, the world isn’t a Hollywood Superman movie.

quote:

---

The technology to do this and provide an argument strong enough to be compelling didn’t exist until 2009. Again, the world isn’t a Hollywood Superman movie.

---

Wait. Are you saying we didn't have adequate communication technolgy/equipment to reach the Moon and back until 2009? Got a link?

They are the same as flat earthers

quote:

---

Also, the leverage of not going in to a nuclear war too. Clark Kent, if the Soviet government called the moon landings fake, would you have believed them? Even so, The USSR never exposed the moon landing because it was incapable of producing verifiable evidence and had little to gain from trying. Idk why y’all Homelander Clark Kent bros think this is some gotcha.

---

You’re stacking explanations without noticing that they contradict each other. First the claim was that U.S. grain shipments were decisive leverage, which supposedly explains why the USSR wouldn’t expose a fake moon landing. When that runs into the obvious problem that this leverage existed during Berlin, Cuba, proxy wars, espionage scandals, uprisings, and an arms race explicitly designed for mutual destruction, you pivot to a second claim: actually the real leverage was avoiding nuclear war. But if nuclear war avoidance was already sufficient leverage to keep the USSR quiet, then grain is irrelevant. You don’t get to keep adding leverage explanations every time the previous one fails.

More importantly, you still haven’t addressed the core inversion. If the U.S. truly had leverage strong enough to silence the USSR, then the simplest move would have been to use that leverage directly to avoid or resolve those conflicts, which would have been a decisive propaganda and strategic win in its own right. Instead, your theory requires that we skipped the easy, durable win and chose a massively complex, fragile scheme that involved faking a moon landing, coordinating silence across hostile powers, expanding the number of people “in the know” into the hundreds of thousands, and maintaining perfect secrecy for decades. That isn’t how rational actors behave. It’s the opposite of how power is normally exercised.

The “would anyone have believed them anyway?” point also misses the mark. The USSR didn’t need Americans to believe them. They needed to create credible doubt internationally, especially among non-aligned countries, scientists, journalists, and their own allies. Even partial doubt would have forced inspections, demands for evidence, technical debate, and escalation. None of that happened. Saying “people wouldn’t believe them” confuses universal acceptance with propaganda impact. Those are not the same thing.

Finally, your claim that the USSR couldn’t produce verifiable evidence is fatal to your own argument. If the landings were fake, the one country most capable of detecting inconsistencies would have been the world’s second-best space power, which independently tracked launches, trajectories, telemetry, and splashdowns. Saying they had no verifiable evidence isn’t an explanation for their silence; it’s an admission that they observed nothing inconsistent with a real mission.

Right now your explanation depends on constantly changing leverage, assumes irrational decision-making, and ends by conceding that the supposed co-conspirator never actually saw proof of a hoax.

Your situation has not improved.

I used to think that the flat earthers and moon landing deniers just liked to go down the rabbit holes as a weird sort of hobby but didn’t actually believe it.

It appears I was wrong.

quote:

---

The technology to do this and provide an argument strong enough to be compelling didn’t exist until 2009. Again, the world isn’t a Hollywood Superman movie.

---

This is just flatly wrong. The USSR didn’t need 2009-era technology to verify Apollo. They tracked launches, trajectories, Doppler shifts, and telemetry in real time in the 1960s. They didn’t have to see astronauts waving from the Moon to know whether a spacecraft went there; orbital mechanics, signal timing, and radio direction-finding already solved that problem. The idea that this couldn’t be checked until 2009 is just modern hindsight masquerading as realism. The Soviets didn’t need HD, they needed math.

You're projecting modern imaging standards onto a question that was answered with Cold War–era physics, which is why the Soviets congratulated us instead of calling bullshite. Hollywood has nothing to do with it. Basic engineering does regardless of your inability to understand it.