EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
No they didn’t. They had their own moon program and announced their intentions to land in 1961 before the Americans announced in 1962
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
If making a statement, why be quiet about it? That ruins the whole point of making a statement like how better someone is at something, doesn’t it? The civilian population in particular didn’t really care.
I don’t understand what you are saying. They had a moon landing program.
Also, do you really think that if the Soviets had the opportunity to embarrass the Americans by proving the landing was fake, they wouldn’t take it? Of course they would. Instead they were able to track the Apollo mission all the way and knew it was real.
But they also said they weren’t interested in the space race. Note that you can be interested in an endeavor other people are interested with without wanting to engage in a “race” with them. In this case they are claimed as being interested in showing off while simultaneously being insecure about said thing. I would be puzzled if someone’s method of showing off was precisely that, to not show off.
You say the rest like they did see it that way, that we absolutely went to the moon. How do you think censorship works? There is plenty of documentation about the case against the moon landing. Despite looking like plot armor though, the power of our culture has promoted the counters to it over it though.
Even if the Soviets had given up on the space race, they still had a vested interest in embarrassing America. They had every motivation to prove that America faked it, but they didn’t do it, because they had all the evidence that it was real. They could track the space craft and listen in on the same signals everyone else did.
All documentation against the moon landing has been thoroughly debunked many times. But you don’t care about that.
You don’t have to trust the Americans, there is plenty of independent third party evidence from multiple sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Who says I don’t care about that? I just put the concept of “debunked” on what I would think is a better scale.
Things you can observe > Things you can infer > Things which suggest something circumstantially > Things others say they observe
Every time I see someone say they’re going to debunk it, they give what seems to be a mix of good and bad logic, all the while saying “you saw it here” like we just watched them interpret scripture, often before belittling people who don’t adhere to it. It’s virtually always what happens.
A good example of this is Mythbusters. They had a whole special episode for it and gave all these reasons but then finished it off with a “ha, we put reflectors up there as proof” before making less than civil remarks towards non-adherents. I was preteen age and my response was to ask “you mean to say probes can’t carry things to the moon”. But you can’t respond to someone on TV, which is why something like that sticks. But mainly, me denying it comes from the context, everything else is happenstance.
I think of things like one might a courtroom. You have a harmony of cross-examination/evidence/witness testimony and you aim for what serves to demonstrate and then suggest certain things. People come in supporting the landing and they have the witnesses while the non-adherents bring in the questions. If it was a murder, it would look very circumstantial, and if it was Mythbusters, almost their whole career, as their experiments were far from perfect, as fun as they were to watch. Court, even mock court, has protocol after all (as a human services worker you see a lot of crazy things pushed forward because everyone went with the imagery as the final word). Anything I hypothesize outside of that is subjective, and if someone disagrees, I respect that or invite them to talk about it like human people (or to accept their invitation to do so).
Of note, the article (and you when you mention the signal detection, but again, think of the times) says third parties found stuff, but third parties and first parties aren’t necessarily separate, or am I missing something?