Found this interesting

All of that ignores the fact that amatures were able to point radio telescopes at the moon and capture the radio signals of the moon landing. English scientists were able to record the brodcasts.

If I remember correctly, telescopes can still locate the rover also.

Ah nevermind. I went and looked it up out of curiosity and turns out even the Hubble can only distinguish stuff at that distance >60meters and the rover was about 3 meters.\r \r http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/11jul_lroc/

Well, there were the independent observers who witnessed and tracked the missions. There is the Retroreflectors, which are mirrors used for earth based tracking lasers that have yielded over 30 years of data in various LRRR experiments. i.e. you can shoot a laser at the right spot on the moon and have it reflect back and measure the time it takes to determine distance to the object. These reflectors were left by the last of the Apollo missions. Then there are the There is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that, in 2009, took a spin around the moon and photographed the remaining equipment still on the moon... and above all that... If they were going to perpetrate a hoax, why do it 9 times with so many different people to possibly \"talk\" about it? And if each 9 flights and landings were indeed faked, why use a different crew than the original 3? Wouldn't a leaner grouping of people been better to hide the existence of a hoax, as opposed to the literal world of people who witnessed the actual act. And why didn't Russia dispute the landings? Wasn't this the culmination of a massive space race that Russia LOST? It seems Russia, among anyone, would have the balls to step up and call the US out for a hoax, unless Russia already knew it to be true and didn't want to look stupid, like Rene'. And then there's THIS asshole.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZ_LCnkE7A ... There is a myriad of other third party evidences available for those who do a simple Google search. One such starting point is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings ... I might suggest rather than fall into conspiracy theory hell, that just a thimble full of real investigative research could easily find major rebuttals to \"proofs\" of a \"faked moon landing\", because in fact the proof of the real life moon landing greatly outweighs the insinuated assertions by laymen on a \"truth\" they more have \"proof\" for that the \"man in the moon\" (pun intended)\r \r