Reply to Bazza:
First and foremost I am patriotic and I do respond to sources that accuse my country of fraud with a little less that total indifference. Now getting to your multiple items of accusation I went through them. Too much space is required to answer each supposition.
1) I filmed the events at home from my TV. The glare was exceptional. Stars could easily be turned off for a camera view.
2) Who says ?pure oxygen? was used. Too dangerous and best diluted for conservation and re-circulated. Your camera argument serves naught.
3) You say no dust but yet dust for a foot print. A foot print was made.
4) Rockets contain all chemicals required to burn, including oxygen.
5) You want air required for a footprint. Displacement of particles works.
6) You argue improvement of equipment is detrimental, why?
7) Probably due to the effect of shadows.
8) Curved surfaces can create non-parallel shadows.
9) Some sloppy grip got there first- or they are not ?c?s.
0) It would have to due to whip location. Not a director?s oversight.
1) Why do you consider some science fiction movie relevant?
2) NASA would dare and they did dare.
3) Your gravity picture may itself be in error. ? was estimated.
4) This is purely your subjective observation of the facts.
5) Your conclusion of the effects of gravity on the Moon errs. Surface gravity is the measure of falling objects and that is where you get the 1/6th. On surface can differ.
6) You want to say no to 12 men going to the Moon with out proof.
7) You?re speculating again. Give the people credit for knowing.
8) You simply ask questions that contain no scientific merit.
9) If you are correct they must still be in the LEM, are they?
0) Possibly, if your contention is correct, NASA worked it out?
1) I think you are at fault here. Some flutter is not beyond reason.
2) This implies an astronaut was making a joke, if he did, so what?
3) This item begs rejection. You tell us why some person resigns.
4) Astronomers have been bouncing lasers from the mirrors we left.
5) You are reckless with conclusions. This is irrelevant argument.
6) Film evidence! Any USA news agency would buy it if for real.
7) You suggest documents were destroyed. Logically this means?
You are welcome to believe as you wish. You can not carry your burden of proof by supposition and conjecture. Much more could be discussed, like your air pressure item of 5psi to a tire at possibly 30psi. Anyway I am too busy for this. jjw