northshorebamaman

quote:

---

The USA was supplying the USSR grain at the time so why go in to a famine to deny the moon landings?

---

So let me get this straight. During the same period when we nearly went to nuclear war, faced off militarily in Berlin, fought a bloody proxy war, exposed each other’s espionage, crushed uprisings that inflamed global opinion, split the communist world internally, and built arsenals explicitly designed to destroy each other...

... we supposedly had decisive leverage through U.S. grain shipments the whole time?

And instead of using that leverage to avoid those conflicts outright, effectively winning the propaganda war and by extension the Cold War the easy way, we skipped the straightforward win and used that leverage only to protect a fake moon landing, accomplishing only half the outcome (winning the propaganda war but not the Cold War) through a massive Rube Goldberg scheme instead that also involved the complicity of the loser?

quote:

---

And Alberta is dominated by Edmonton and Calgary.

---

This is a controversial point on here for some reason.

quote:

---

Because in reality the US/USSR/W. Europe/China at the top level have been working together behind the scenes to rule the rest of the world and keep things from going to shite.

---

What evidence do you have that China and India were part of a top-level coordination structure in the 1960s, given that neither was aligned with the US or USSR at the time and both independently acknowledge the Apollo landings today? And do you have anything supporting that assertion other than the fact that it conveniently fills one of the largest holes in your theory?

quote:

---

Keeping the general populace in the dark and managing them like children via smoke & mirrors is the most effective policy for preventing insurrection.

---

If the safest policy is keeping the general populace in the dark and managing them via smoke and mirrors how do you square that with the fact that the space race directly involved tens to hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, contractors, and military personnel, with millions more indirectly involved across industry, universities, tracking stations, and foreign observers? At that scale, who exactly is being “kept in the dark,” and how does expanding the circle of knowledge to that many people reduce the risk of internal destruction rather than multiply it?

quote:

---

There may bullshite posited in the media about being enemies, but at the end of the day we have each others backs. e.g. WWII vs the axis

---

You had to reach all the way back to WWII and almost the beginning of our relations for an example that doesn't even work?:lol:

First off, Stalin didn’t even intend to be part of that alliance until Hitler double-crossed him, which makes it a reaction to betrayal, not evidence of durable cooperation. And even then, it was an explicit, temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, openly acknowledged, widely debated, and often criticized as a mistake while it was happening. How does that kind of improvised, openly contested wartime alignment support the decades-long, covert, frictionless partnership you’re claiming here?

Do you maybe have a better example? Maybe even one that's in living memory for those of us under 100?

quote:

---

Also it's relatively simple to keep a big secret so long as you vet the people that know it ahead of time. e.g. entrapment to see if they'll disclose/perpetuate smaller secrets first and then let them work their way up. Hell anyone that's a member of a fraternity has likely gone through something similar on a micro scale prior to initiation

---

Comparing a fraternity initiation to a decades-long, multinational space program conspiracy is a category error, not an analogy.

A fraternity involves a few dozen people, lasts a few years, faces no hostile intelligence agencies, produces no permanent technical record, and collapses the moment anyone graduates, gets bored, or starts telling stories at a bar. The space race involved hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, contractors, and military personnel, millions indirectly, multiple rival governments, independent verification, physical hardware that still exists, and a paper trail that spans generations.

Vetting doesn’t freeze human behavior in amber. People retire, get bitter, write memoirs, get divorced, need money, change beliefs, or die and leave documents behind. If “working your way up through smaller secrets” actually scaled the way you’re suggesting, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, MKUltra, and COINTELPRO wouldn’t exist.

The fact that your only workable analogy is a college social club is a pretty good indicator that your theory doesn’t survive contact with real institutions, real incentives, real time, or reality in general.

quote:

---

Why the downvotes?. BC with Alberta would shut off the northern exploration from CA. It would also give an option to pipeline the O&G to the Pacific Coast without going to Alaska. I'm no O&G guy but having another access to the coast doesn't seem outlandish to me.

---

Probably because BC is very comparable to WA in voting patterns. Rural conservative population vastly outnumbered by a solidly liberal metro.

quote:

---

So riddle me this, if Alberta is so 'blue', why leave Canada at all? Seems counter intuitive to run from a govt which aligns with your own.


What gives?

---

I’m not sure why you’re challenging me at all. I posted straightforward population and voting distribution numbers, not a claim about why anyone should or shouldn’t support secession. Polling puts independence support around 20–30 percent (which lines up nicely with the urban/rural split), so a petition existing doesn’t imply majority backing. Urban areas can outnumber rural voters while a loud rural minority drives separatism. That’s just how demographics work. Sorry.

quote:

---

WTF is that wall of words?

---

He's uncertain whether Brian Cole Jr. was involved in the J6 pipe bombs. A brief, edited body-cam clip from an April 2024 traffic stop is being promoted as a Scripps News “exclusive,” but it adds little useful information.

The video has drawn minimal attention, is difficult to find, and does not identify which police department recorded it. Only a waist-up segment is shown, omitting potentially relevant details like gait, footwear, or full movement.

Despite prior cases where gait analysis was treated as relevant, no effort appears to have been made to provide fuller context. If Cole pleads to a lesser charge, the evidence may never be publicly examined, leaving key questions unresolved.

Explains why the Declaration famously begins, “I’m King George now.”

quote:

---

Oh and 75 bytes of ram to write the code to blast off, separate modules, fly directly to moon, separate again, land on the moon, take off from the moon, reconnect to orbiter, fly a straight line back to Earth and land in the ocean.

That's hella efficient code.

---

Not 75 bytes. About 2 KB RAM, 36 KB ROM, and nonstop ground support. Simple hardware, narrow tasks, no graphics, no OS, no multitasking. Purpose-built computers doing a narrowly defined job with minimal memory isn't magic.

quote:

---

It's largely kids who weren't alive when the US made it's moon landings

---

Not trying to make you feel old but some of those 'kids' are pushing 60 now. :lol:

I’m broadly with you on where naval dominance actually comes from: subs, missiles, sensors, drones, logistics, and shipyard capacity. That’s real power, not cosplay.

The part I’m skeptical of is layering an entirely new, eleven-figure surface platform on top of that when we’ve already struggled to build existing classes on time and on budget. Zumwalt, Ford, Constellation, even Virginia production rates all say industrial capacity is the bottleneck, not platform.

If the concern is maintaining superiority, it's more realistic to fix throughput on platforms we already know work than to bet big on a prestige hull that competes for the same yards, crews, and dollars.