If the moon landing was fake, why didn't the USSR say so?

I'm agnostic about the moon landing. I don't think it was *definitely* fake, but it's a proposition I take seriously. Over the last few days I've had occasion to think about why, if it was, the USSR didn't say something.

In cascading reasons: A receiver is not a radar, a proof is not an argument, there was a second operation paperclip, a spy satellite is a spy, and a microphone is a speaker.

1. They may not have known:

Picking up a radio signal doesn't automatically tell you where it's coming from- you know direction to within a certain margin, but at the scales involved that margin is important. You know nothing about distance, this is why radar was invented. And again, at the distances

involved here the resolution required to track a rocket becomes ludicrous. Consider that on earth planes are tracked with these, but ICBMs are tracked with THESE.

2. Suppose they did know- what would proof look like? Certainly no one reading their claims was capable of independant verification. They could only hold up a sheet of paper printed on their own stationary, with their own numbers, and promise they were telling the truth.

A decade earlier the USSR went to the UN with stone physical proof the US was dropping anthrax on Korea and China. They had dates, samples, multiple independent witnesses, the works. None of it mattered. What would happen if they went back waving a sheet of their own math?

3. Suppose they did know AND thought they could get people to listen. They might not WANT to prove it. They might even help participate in a coverup, and not just because they were revisionists.

If the moon landing was fake the Apollo missions themselves were certainly real-

so what were they? Why would someone fake a moon landing? The idea it was all for propaganda photos seems lame. As apoints out, sometimes you can't hide what you're doing because it's too big. So you lie about exactly WHAT you're doing. If it's 1969, someone has just developed

an enormous new rocket, sent it far beyond low orbit, and (presume) lied about what the rocket is doing, what is the most likely explanation? A spy satellite. A big spy satellite, very high up.

I think the smart money (on balance) is that Apollo 11 wasn't the first moon landing.

It was the first modern spy satellite. Parked in geostationary orbit, with no need to physically drop film canisters.

If that's true, and the USSR suspected it, they might very well help propagate the cover story. Because as long as WE believe THEY believe we went to the moon,

they know something we don't, and they can use it to control us. It's the haversack ruse. If you discover a spy arresting them is not your only option. You can also put on a play for them.

Every time you make a public claim your enemy has 5D chess calculations floating around their head, trying to figure out how you're lying. But if you discover their spy- and leave them alone- you now have an unwitting double agent. Show that spy exactly what you want them to see,

and they'll take that story right to your enemy. Totally bypassing their suspicions. If the moon landing was fake it was probably a spy satellite parked over the soviet union. A spy satellite is just a robotic spy. And the smart thing to do was keep quiet and put on a show for it

A microphone also works as a speaker. And if they SECRETLY knew the moon landing was fake, they had a way to control not only what NATO thought about things, but what things NATO thought about.