dichotomy

You sound like the morons who tell me that evolution isn't true. It has nothing to do with "accepting things like a religious zealot," and nothing to do with a "nervous reaction from someone who isn't so sure."

 

It's about the fact that I've looked at the evidence... the MOUNTAINS of evidence... and how it all shows remarkable confluence and points to the same conclusion... the conclusion that YES, we fuc*ing landed on the moon EXACTLY as we said we did, and people who keep claiming otherwise are a bunch of retards. It's about the fact that I am easily annoyed by the continuation of such ridiculous questions despite the fact that every objection you've put forth has been heartily addressed.

 

 

Religious zealot? Nervous reaction? Seriously? I'm done with you.

Gee, post a simple fact and iNow spits the dummy . The truth hurts. Ok, so what you seem to assume is that people whom inquire here have to take iNow’s word for it just like Forest Gump type morons or **** off. Speaks volumes about your level of true emotional maturity. And even more about your dubious powers of reason. Agree with iNow on everything or he won’t help with anything, sad! So do you regularly explode into reptilian fight/flight states when someone disagrees with your god like knowledge of moon walks?. What a ****ing dictator! Strike a light! And ****ing grow up!

Keep taking your pills iNow, you’ll eventually benefit, I hope. I done with you too, on account of your pathetic childish temperament and your overreactive disposition.

iNow, POWER and CONTROL FREAK, extraordinaire ...

Why is someone who, by random chance, happens to know you more reliable than anyone else?

Not necessarily more reliable, they are easier to judge on their previous track record. I have "SOLID" personal experience of this, I'm sure you do to.

Oh, and we have actually been to the deepest point in the ocean, several times, since 1960.

Thanks chief. I honestly wasn’t sure. Is it a crime on SFN to not know something now?

Except, by your standards, we haven't, since we have even less evidence of that than of going to the moon.

That's it keep up the insults grownup.

Please try and keep it civil everyone!

What, with these Hill Children???

If they agree to stop throwing there sad childish stones, then I will too. It's a Triune brain model thing...it's worked for millennia.

Sheesh, talk about precious.

Note to self, don't ask questions about things that are sacred cows.

Hardly, terrorists are people who make systematic use of terror to coerce and bend the will of those they consider opponents.

That sounds like any "legitimate" war.

The Yanks where considered terrorists by the British back in the war of independance days. It all comes down to perspective. Maybe terrorists generally don't control a state perhaps? Terrorist don't have massive wealth? Ahh, terrorist is just not a scientific term is it.

Yeah... except now he thinks YOU are a nutter since you asked him whether or not we actually landed on the moon.

Well then, does a scientific mind just accept things like a religious zealot, or does it inquire on many levels? iNow, I know you are being facetious, but ridicule is a science killer or a nervous reaction from someone whom isn't so sure, IMO.

Dichotomy, I'd love to see you take a course in paleontology. If you can't handle the minor gaps in coverage and data on this issue, paleontology would make your head explode.

It's funny, because paleontology is "stuff of the earth" I more familiar with, I think I could accept the gaps more readily, I totally accept the concept of evolution for example. I just don't personally know anyone who has walked on the hostile surface of the moon. I mean, we haven't even got a man down to the deepest depths of the oceans yet, or have we?

But beyond that, not too long ago new and brighter pictures of the surface of the moon were acquired and you can *clearly* see the landing places + vehicles + human tracks from the various apollo missions to the moon, INCLUDING the first landing.

(here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html and here: http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html are two examples)

~moo

You had me all exited then , I thought they might be updated high res images, but it’s the same pre school finger painting that I’ve already posted in this thread.

Merged post follows:

Welcome to the club :cool:

I intend to look at the Moon Rocks information more closely so I can potentially be 100% convinced! The holy grail!!!

What the **** is a holy grail anyway?

Your little interior scientist does not know how to do a search for scientific articles. Just a smattering:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/3968/282

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/4020/363

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/182/4113/681

Thanks, I'll take a look, and so will Egbert, my scared little inner scientist.

We went to the Moon.

Yes, but unmanned.

dichotomy and hemantc007: You are the ones making the elaborate claims. The burden of proof lies on you to prove your claims, not us to disprove them.

That's right, but the burden back on those with meager resourses to do it. I am trying to disprove the hoax!!! So, where are the independant references, citations, etc. I'll even take a signed scribbled note (from a russian national) on some dunny paper at present. All it needs to say is -"Yep, can be done and was done". Taddah!!!

Merged post follows:

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

FFS, All I wanted was a "Russian Scientific Reference", to state that it was indeed done. And you know that. I know I'm not taking to hill children here...Or...????

Merged post follows:

so you ask for russian media but then you say russian media isn't sufficient? ffs make up your mind.

FFS, All I wanted was a "Russian Scientific Reference", to state that it was indeed done. And you know that. I know I'm not talking to hill children here...Or...????

Dichotomy: Given the the level of political hostility and competitiveness between the two countries do you honestly think Russia would let the US get away with a scam of that magnitude if they didn't do it? Think of their resources that they had (and have now), compared to ours here on this forum, and yet they are quiet and have been for 40 years.

 

Think of the political points Russia would gain from showing it was scam.

 

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. " - Abraham Lincoln

 

I can't say anymore

Okay, the problem with media being the messenger of science is that it can be manipulated at too many points to mention. Think of the German population in WW2. Do you think the Nazi's would allow the truth to establish itself from outside their ideological boarders? No, and if it did succeed getting through it would be discredited and laughed upon by the Nazi hierachy and the general population would generally believe they are in the right. Extreme example I know.

The point is that mainstream Russian media have recently given a lot of credibility to some hoax/propaganda theories. I'm not saying it was a hoax. I'm saying that the Russians appear to not be completely convinced. You would be surprised how little real news we get from Russia, even today. And you would also be very surprise at just how filtered western media is, both to and from China and Russia, and from us to them.

Besides, I'm 95% certain. Just like the scientific Method recommends! If it's good enough for the method, it's good enough for this suburban slob

Ok, I see I have bottomed out here in my quest. The only references I have to rely on to join the dots are the Murdoch style tabloid newspapers and media reports. Gee, no wonder civilized history is so obscured. A total reliance on taking someone’s word for it. Just like the word of GOD.

BTW I’m not blaming anyone here; it’s just our inherent human limitations shining through.

Thanks anyway. I have learnt much here in a short space of time.

I just hope in the future something like Science Daily publishes more about manned interplanetary space travel.

What I will do is look more closely at the returned moon rocks as evidence of a manned lunar walk. They seem like the most solid bits of evidence to me anyway.

Very convincing from an Aussie forum -

"Moon rocks are similar to Earth rocks, indicating a common origin. But they are different enough from Earth rocks that if you were to give a Moon rock to a geologist without telling her where it came from, she could tell you with certainty that it didn’t come from the Earth.

Moon rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, which was obviously expected. But they are also essentially free of water, and contain little in the way of other volatile chemicals, which wasn’t universally expected.

Finally, it’s worth noting that at least some of the rocks scientists have studied from the Moon were selected during the missions by looking at the television pictures beamed back live from the Moon.

Yes, there are lunar meteorites which have been collected on the Earth. But their surfaces have been weathered by passing through the Earth’s atmosphere. By contrast, the Apollo rocks are covered with tiny craters caused by the impact of microscopic dust particles at speeds of tens of kilometres a second. We don’t have the technology to recreate those craters.

So in other words, the Apollo rocks weren’t collected from the Moon by robots, and they weren’t collected on the Earth. The only solution left is that they were collected by humans from the Moon."

I have been confirmed an incurrable mathematical dyslexic by a specialist.

Can someone please post the solution the problem:

What size would a sphere of pure iridium need to be, to give it the same gravity as our Earth?

You can send me a private message if you don't want to spoil it for others. cheers.

In spite of the fact that I clearly explained what the scientific literature consists of and why you won't find anything?

 

Hell, there's nothing in the US scientific literature about the moon landing.

 

Because that's not what the scientific journals are there for.

 

 

Now, how about answering with something that's actually *possible*.

So, the moon landings are not truely science then? Does this confine them to the world of politics??? If moon landings are not in scientific journals, then my little interior scientist says, they are A. Highly possible but unproven B. Pure propaganda and politiking C. A mass delusion, on par with belief in a deity - in that exact order of probability.

Can you make out footprints with Google maps, or the equivalent, which use airplanes vs satellites?

 

The laughable thing here is that the "coverup" demanded requires more advanced capability than the original landings.

Well, simple to prove outright. Provide a Russian satillite image of a single moon landing site that shows tracks.

No, I don't know. You've never explicitly elaborated, and when you have made explicit requests, they've been met, only to have you move the goalposts.

I’ve never moved the goal posts.

Ok Mokele, one last time for your benefit. Even though I made it perfectly clear in my earliest post.

I require one, yes that’s right 1, Russian, and or Chinese scientific reference to confirm a "MOON (lunar) WALK, BY AT LEAST ONE HOMO SAPIEN".

The reference can not be produced by a non Russian/Chinese national, unless, it was produced while they where still a confirmed national.

I’ve attempted to search the Russian science links kindly provided, but to no avail at this point in time.

BTW. I’m 95% sure it happened now. And according to the scientific method this makes me certain it happened.

Merged post follows:

"How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States?

"

A bit more so than these folks.

Was'nt Reagan one of those Disney animatronix?

Merged post follows:

Seriously, dichotomy. I was already despairing and losing hope for humanity. You're not helping me whatsoever with this thread, my man.

Lord iNow, model citizen.

It’s not that complex if you catalogue humour under - "power and control".

I speculate that basically everything we do is ultimately for personal and tribal power and/or control; over ourselves and our environment. Homo sapiens are spectacular control freaks. That’s one good reason why we excel with science and creativity compared with our fellow life forms.

I know there is at least some scientific psychological/neurological research out there that explores this fascinating area. Any links would be appreciated.

Some links -

Humor Shown To Be Fundamental To Our Success As A Species

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612150144.htm

Love Me; Love My Jokes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212200527.htm

Having Less Power Impairs The Mind And Ability To Get Ahead, Study Shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515113259.htm

If you are a scientific man, as you claim, your statement above says you are 95% certain. This means you have reached the probability threshold necessary for something to be accepted scientifically, as described by Mokele

Damn, you're ****ing right!

Merged post follows:

Seriously, dichotomy. I was already despairing and losing hope for humanity. You're not helping me whatsoever with this thread, my man.

iNow, you're lucky. I lost hope years ago...I'm hoping for a homosapien speciation, not unlike chimps and bonobos. I'll be a well dressed baboon of couse!

Maybe you can give us more perspective by telling us other percentage certainties you have:

 

How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States?

 

How certain are you that we invaded Iraq?

 

How certain are you that the Cuban Missile Crisis was genuine and not a joint effort political ruse?

 

How certain are you that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Honestly, I'm not even certain that I have a clean pair of black socks in my draws at present, so I better go look. Gotta go! Cheers.

The only thing I found obviously unreliable (in the Docu) was the talk about Captain Pizarro leading 170 conquistadors to victory against 80000 Incas! Look, I can believe the microbes hypothesis being primarily responsible for this victory, but not the talk of horses, muskets and swords. I think Captain Pizarro ensured a over inflated legend for himself.

I’m a socialist right winger, in favour of benevolent dictatorships.

Nah! Democratic Socialist Greenie (idealist:embarass:).

What's missing, here, dichotomy, is one key question: What will it take for you to accept that it did happen?

 

The problem, as I see it, is your constantly shifting goalposts. Nothing is ever good enough, and you seem intent of requiring something that simply isn't possible simply due to the remoteness of the location.

 

If you won't accept testimony of the folks who actually went there, or photos of the landing site, or photos/video taken while up there, or rocks they brought back, or testimony of hundreds of thousands of NASA folks, or newspaper reports, or reports from tracking stations, or laser ranging using devices left up there, or signal delays, then what do you want?

 

 

The problem is that you claim to be following the scientific method, but aren't. The scientific method is never about absolute proof - such a thing doesn't exist. The actual scientific method would say "if we went to the moon, what evidence would there be?", and compile a list of predictions. "People who actually went there" is pretty damned high on the list, along with all the other evidence mentioned, more than enough.

 

You also have some pretty big misconceptions about the scientific literature. Nobody wastes time publishing "Hey, men landed on the moon" because a) it's in all the papers and everyone watched the video and b) it's not a hypothesis with predictions, an experiment and results, which is what scientific papers contain. The closest analogy to what you're after is species descriptions and other purely descriptive science, which is usually confined to the back of minor journals with minimal circulation and no detectable impact factor.

 

Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades.

 

Last, but not least, you need to look at the evidence as a whole. Even if there's a chance that something's not right with any given piece of evidence, if there are several thousand independent bits of evidence, that counts for a LOT.

"Roald Sagdeev who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland. He once was the Director of the Soviet Space Institute. He is right now at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California looking at photos for evidence that there is frozen ice in craters on the moon." - again with the conflict of interest. Sorry, this still makes me 5% short of being convinced, according to the scientific method.

"What will it take for you to accept that it did happen?" you already know what it will take. Reference please...

Merged post follows:

dichotomy, have you ever tried looking for the evidence yourself?

 

 

Yes, but I thought it more astute to ask the experts. Besides, this is part of the evidence I'm accumulating. I thought this would be the critical path.

Merged post follows:

http://www.roscosmos.ru/index.asp?Lang=ENG

PLEEEASE MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY AND TELL US YOU YOU FEEL CERTAIN IT HAPPENED!

I'd be the first to be happy that this space monkey was off my back!

Thanks for the link. I know it's a pain in the arse searching/translating 'cause I've been trying it my self....masochist!!! :-(

dichotomy, I think a 10% doubt is very unreasonable, for reasons gone over in this thread.

 

However, I'll try to provide what you're asking for. I can't find online archives of Soviet or Chinese newspapers from 1969 (let alone English translations), but the very first Google result for "Soviet newspapers moon landing" is this interview with Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita) from Scientific American about Apollo 11, including how it was portrayed in the state-run media. It was not and has never been contested.

Sorry, this is not independant enough, but thanks for trying, why? - "Sergei Nikitich Khrushchev, son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, now resides in the United States where he is a Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Khrushchev

A massive conflict of interest. If he was still a Russian national, I'd completely accept his words. You had my hopes up then!

Merged post follows:

the lunar landers are relatively small and such high resolution cameras have never been deemed necessary to fulfill scientific missions hence none have ever been sent till now.

 

the satellite that took that photograph isn't in its final orbit yet. those pictures are from about 3 times further away than the design altitude

When they talk of something like '30' meters per pixel images, what size pixel are they referring too?

 

Apollo 14 did not have a lunar rover.

 

it was well within design specifications. also, it wasn't that heavy. on the lunar surface a human could lift it up(fair enough, the dimensions would make it awkward and difficult to get off the ground but it wasn't weight that was the problem.

Fair enough, I would just love to see a moon buggy up there. And take a ride!

Yes, they do (to the latter) — just barely.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Come on guys! You are science people, not god botherers. This supposed photographic proof in the year 2009 is totally laughable. If the Russians have sent multiple unmanned craft to take moon samples from 1969, if mars rovers are currently sending back data, then surely we could get some detailed high resolution image evidence today. From someone? I know the Japanese recently tried and failed with there probe.

It’s interesting; they point out astronaut’s footpath etc, but where are the lunar rovers and their tracks? They are my personal favourites. Besides, they would have been quite an added weight to the spaceflight. Very risky I would have thought, considering you have mens lives in your hands.

Also, check this out

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23205/

 

Faking that level of detail would be pretty impressive.

In theory, faking a correct echo would be easy if you sent an unmanned craft to the moon to video broadcast the whole moon landing/walk thing. Even easier, if the echo effect was pre-recorded in a studio and broadcast from a space probe/satillite. Granted the echo would be impressive detail if faked, but not beyond intelligent chess playing men.

Anyway, this is taking up far too much of everyone’s time. I’ll now be content to patiently wait for the scientific reference (not non- peer reviewed tabloid newspapers) I’ve asked for. Even though the Russian scientists where not up there to see it first hand, I’d take their word for it (that it’s been done), when combined with Nasa’s and the Nixon administrations existing claims. Just remember, when a group of scientists are broken up into enough different specialized areas they all won’t know what the head/s (the administration) are doing. If I was a betting man I’d still say it (a manned moon expedition) was indeed done. But my small inner scientific man tells me, “with every speculation there is a risk”.

Merged post follows:

What you are asking is impossible

What!? the other superpowers independent scientific reference/s? Come on, it's not rocket science!

The only things that are 100% certain are death and taxes. :

You got that bit right brother! Oh, and change...

Well this is (IIRC) only a database of available (published) info which was put in by a host of student workers. As such interpretation is basically entirely upon the user.

So, it's a work in progress? Or, should be used in conjunction with the most reliable up to date data available?

I really didn't think I tripped it up. What I was hoping for was less of a divergence between wolf and tassie wolf, than from kangaroo and tassie wolf.

dichotomy,

 

I don't know if you notice...but you are full of shit lol, and I think you know it.

You are picking apart unreasonable SINGLE examples of proof and making it seem as if it discredits the moon landing as a whole or at least places it in an unknowable "for sure 100%" category...FINE. Then after people get frustrated at other peoples inability to take scientific, logical, and rational approach, REPEATEDLY using the same method, you condemn them but not the other people?

Like I stated, I stand at 90% convinced of a moon walk, which I think is pretty damn reasonable considering I'm Joe Average from the suburbs that doesn't have close contacts in any of the superpowers political and military hierachies. Although I'm 100% sure that Micheal Jackson has done it.

If you want to look at assumption why do you dismay that if there is indeed a suggestive nature to the technology used than, why the Russians would just let it go? How much money and effort did they spend in the space race? Why would they based on inconclusive evidence just accept that USA beat them.

Russian state TV news recently gave a lot of attention to a hoax manned Apollo 11 Moon landing. I can provide a link to the limited story if you wish.

All I'm asking for are Russian, and or Chinese scientific references stating that an astronaut can walk on the moon, which would crystalize it as a 100% scientific fact in my mind anyway. Is this too much to ask? Honestly, I thought it would be slightly easier than NASA demonstrating it as a fact by actually doing it again today? All I'm attempting is to build evidence in support of a moon walk, just as the 'scientific method' recommends. Why is this such a touchy subject? If I lived in a remote community that never saw an aircraft, I'd be asking for credible scientific references outside of my community to establish aircraft as a 100% scientific fact, even though I've never seen one.

What evidence do you have that there were no people on that flight?

None,that's where independant superpowers step in, because they have the resources and I simply don't. Look I'll make it real simple, all superpowers agree that pluto, manned space stations and space probes exist, therefore I do. Do you see the logic? All superpowers agree that these are facts. If I was a russky, I'd be seeking a U.S. reference for Russian scientific claims that are difficult to prove/replicate. Come on, I'm 90% convinced that a hoax busting reference exists, don't make it 20%.

You are clearly not in anyway taking the proper road scientifically. you can question all you want but you are not taking the path you think you are taking.

You must have ESP.

I don't see how 99% chance of something being correct is in anyway worse than the 1% if you accept that you can never be 100% certain of anything.

You are obviously not into probability.

I suggest everyone just stop replying to this non sense.

 

(after me of course )

Hello! this is the S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S thread. I suggest someone attempt to find a russian reference to shoot this bullshit down in flames. Honestly, it's beginning to seem like asking a religious nut for a credible reference to prove a deitie's existance. It just shouldn't be that big a deal.

Merged post follows:

If it was provable that we did not go to the moon it would be worldwide headlines.

I'm not asking for proof against a moon walk, I'm asking for what I see as damned solid proof for a moon walk, by the supply of a simple scientific reference from the independant superpowers. Knock, knock, knock. Hello! anyone home.

Keep looking under your bed for a red, stay in fear, stay in fear, buy, buy consume, consume. (see I can stoop to my more primitive brain regions too ).

Well, we did broadcast television signals back from the Moon live. They could have listened for that. I don't know if the link D H gave says they did; Google translations are annoyingly difficult to read.

Well, at least DH gave me something (scientific references) as opposed to the nothing I got thus far from aussie science forums. The best that was provided was western newspaper reports of the time. Hardly scientific method stuff I'm affraid.

Merged post follows:

This is all funny as hell!!!

 

I have a buddy who is dead set that we did not land on the moon.

 

Same buddy says there is an alien base on the backside of the moon! LoL!! The aliens were there when the astronauts were...

 

...oops!!! LoL!!

 

This is all funny as hell!!!

I have a buddy who believes every single detail of what governments and the commercial sector say.

Same buddy says that Vietnam is a good war and that thalidomide is a wonder drug.

...oops!!! LoL!!

see how juvenile it is?

See! Aha!!! Proof that you are lying and are forced to censor dissent. If we really did land on the moon, you'd be able to show evidence, and you Can't! All you can do is ban people who are seeking the truth.

If it wasn't so close to the truth I'd laugh! This is SFN and not North Korea is it not?

Originally Posted by dichotomy

Or am I wrong here?

 

You are wrong. We went to the Moon. To quote Bascule,

Originally Posted by bascule

Yes, we landed on the f*cking moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day.

=============

 

Originally Posted by John Cuthber

I have an idea.

we set up a new rule.

Anyone can post a "we didn't go to the moon" type message provided that they supply evidence for it as proof.

If, however, they post a "proof" that has been discredited before they get permanantly banned from the site.

 

Count me in. Almost. I have a slightly more aggressive idea: Anyone who posts a "we didn't go to the moon" type message gets banned immediately.

Hmm, okay, no need to devolve and get all reptilian here DH. I thought science was about inquiry, proof and logic, the scientific method, etc, and not the hostile immature emotions of a god fearing 15 year old. And after all, this is the speculations thread . I could just as immaturely state that, "we have no f*cking proof of walking on the moon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking tard. Good day". But I find it ineffectual in getting solid evidence. And I could go to other science forums that engage in exactly that kind of consistently pissy response to questions if I was so pointlessly inclined.

So I take it, from your response and references, that a radio signal coming from the moon is enough to prove to the Russians that men can indeed 'walk' on the moon? Although in the reference you generously supply I see nothing that actually states this as fact. What it proves to me is that the Russians where tracking radio communications coming from the direction of the moon, that astronauts where in space at the time, and that a space craft accomplished flight around and landing on the moon. This puts me at about a 90 percent level of accepting astronauts actually walking on the moon and driving about in a moon rover.

To quote -

"to develop the special control radio-technical complex, with the aid of which it would be possible to assume signals from the American spacecraft of the program "of Apollo", which accomplished flight around the moon and landing on its surface." No statement of men walking on the moons surface.

None the less, I do appreciate the Russian scientific references you supplied and hope that you, or someone else, can come across one that shows the Russians accepting the fact of an actual homosapien walking on the moons surface.

Cheers.

It seems a bit trivial to say that environmental factors will have a determining influence on a culture - if anything the negate would be taking an anthropocentric view to an absurd extreme.

I suppose what's not trivial is the explanation of exactly what environmental factors had the largest impacts on the various populations that hold power...and those that don't?

klay, all you needed to tell that there was a signal coming from the moon would be two directional antennaa seperated by a reasonably large distance(200 miles should do) and you'd be bale to detect that a signal truely is coming from the moon.

The problem with using, "a signal coming from the moon", as solid proof is that it can be achieved using unmanned space craft (and satellites). The same goes for the mirrors that are on the moon. Or am I wrong here? But if the Russian scientists are happy with signals as solid evidence, then I would be as well. I just need to see the reference.

From what I can gather, the best available evidence of a moon walk is the 300 odd kgs of moon rocks that have been collected. But what I have read is that these rocks could have just as easily been collected from earth as fragments of meteorites, and of course the USSR managed to collect moon rocks with unmanned craft.

Also, a reasonably well supported scientific theory states that the moon is a fragment of earth which broke away after a collision and merging with another planet. This would lead me to assume that the minerals collected from the moon can also be collected from the parts of the earth that it broke off from (minus organic matters influences of course). This is not solid evidence either.

We may all have to wait for a manned Mars landing that will probably be even harder for independent superpowers to indisputably prove.