Yes, we believe it is. We're not sure if it's standing because it might have been knocked over by the engine blast when the ascent module of Apollo 11 took off.
Pictures of the moon can be taken when the sun is shining. The third quarter moon can often be seen before sun rise just as the first quarter moon can often be seen before sunset. Pictures of Earth landscapes can include the moon under such circumstances. The best pictures of the moon taken through a telescope are taken along the terminator which allows the shadows there to highlight surface details on the moon. Pictures of this nature are not taken during the day because the brightness of the sky washes out the shadows.
The moon revolves around the Earth due to a gravitational attraction between the two. This attraction, called the gravitational force, causes bulges on both sides of the Earth at points beneath the moon (this effect also causes the tides -- more information on those at http://www.sfgate.com/getoutside/1996/jun/tides.html). But these bulges aren't directly on the point beneath the moon, but off to the side some. This is slowing down the Earth a little bit at a time because nature doesn't want that off-center bulge--it wants it stable and directly underneath.
The same thing happened with the moon before. The moon's rotation was slowed down by the force of the Earth, and since the Earth is so much bigger, the effect was a lot stronger. When the Moon's rotation was slowed to match its orbital period, the "bulge" was no longer off-center and the system was again stable.
The same thing has happened to most of the other satellites in the solar system. You can see a list of their orbital and rotational periods at:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/data1.htm. Eventually, the Earth's rotation will slow down to match the Moon's period. The same thing happened with Pluto and its moon, Charon.
You can visit this website for some more information on this subject and the moon in general:
http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/luna.html. And a somewhat different answer to the same question at:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980519a.html.
I believe the answer has to do with equilibrium thermodynamics. There is no water in the Moon's (almost non-existent) atmosphere and so the water would get sucked out of the astronaut's unsuited body in an effort to even out the water vapour pressure over the Moon's surface. Since there is so little water in the astronaut's body compared to Moon surface, the water leaves the body very quickly and very completely, leaving behind dry dust.
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) decides on names for things in the Solar System, such as planets, asteroids, and moons. I asked Dr. Aksnes, the chairman of the group that decides on names for planetary systems and what's in them, this question. It turns out that the IAU has not decided on a single name for the Moon (or the Sun for that matter), but supports the common practice of using the name of the Moon (or the Sun) in any language. Without capitalization, the word "moon" can be interpreted as any other moon and the word "sun" as any other star.
Of course they did! The Apollo Moon landings were among the most completely documented and observed events in history. The conspiracy "theories" that claim otherwise are a bunch of nonsense without even a single compelling piece of evidence. Most of the questions raised are based on ignorance of basic physics and optics. Video special effects were in their infancy in the late 60's so that faking a landing on the Moon would probably have been more difficult than actually going there, and it seems highly unlikely that the hundreds or even thousands of people who would have had to be involved in such a conspiracy would have kept it a secret for so long.
Ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself if the marginal evidence offered to show this was all a hoax is compelling enough to overturn the overwhelming evidence that it actually occurred, but make sure you check the facts carefully, you need to be a little skeptical of the skeptics, too. For more detailed debunking of this ill-conceived notion, see: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html, http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/, http://www.nsta.org/pubs/tst/article1.asp, http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/.
No, because the United Nations Treaty on Outer Space signed in 1967 prevents any nation from owning planets, stars, or any objects found in space. The NASA astronaut placed the flag on the Moon to let the world know that "America went in peace for all Mankind."
This is the actual law: ARTICLE I: ..." Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies. There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation." ARTICLE II: " Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
More Questions 
