northshorebamaman

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.

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.

So the story is that this loving mom sat down to calmly type out a long op on a site she’s posted a dozen times in over half a decade while her kids are upstairs hysterically processing the end of their childhood?

Disappointed in you guys. This place used to have better instincts.

Because one institution is corrupt, the answer is to give another corrupt institution authority over information?

If the problem is captured media, the obvious response is to break the influence and credibility of captured media, not to support policies that ultimately centralize messaging under the state.

Good ideas survive without enforcement. Bad ideas collapse without persecution. When you ask the state to silence speech, you’re not defending truth, you’re confessing you don’t believe your version of it can stand on its own.

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.”