Some of the more idiotic arguments from that page:

Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963...

Kaysing received his bachelor of arts degree in English in 1949. Seven years later he's magically at a senior V.P. level position in a major technology corporation.

1. In a major engineering corporation no one would simultaneously hold the positions of director of technical publications and director of advanced research.

2. No one can hold the position of director of advanced research in a large, major technology corporation without a Master's degree in a technical field. To head up advanced research in a company whose major product is rocket engines, an advanced degree in mechanical engineering would be a must.

3. No one rises to that position without having published significant original research in the applicable field. Kaysing has no such publications.

4. Persons who have directed advanced research can typically discuss technical subjects without making the glaring errors that Kaysing has made.

He [David Percy] has studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat that not many people have done.

First, the downlinks are originally on videotape, not originally on film. Only the 16mm DAC footage was originally on film and has been transferred to videotape.

Second, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that Percy hasn't examined much, if any, of the vast high-quality video footage he claims to possess. The things he says are suspiciously absent from the footage are suspiciously easy for others to find.

On the still photo ... we see a flap of triangular fabric

The flap is most certainly visible in the video footage. Aulis is looking in the wrong place.

...it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that?

Anyone who's ever seen a command module knows why. In order to film through the hatch window up close you would have to scrunch in between the floor and the control panel. This is uncomfortable, especially in zero gravity. Your body doesn't stay scrunched the way it would if you hunker on earth. You have to use your muscles to hold the hunker.

Better instead to "stand" in the docking tunnel where you can stretch out naturally, and the hatch is in front of you, albeit four or five feet away.

...but from the view of Earth in the right hand window ...

They assume the blue glow is the earth as seen from orbit. The lighting doesn't work out -- what's illuminating the transparency then? Further, the "clouds" in the view of earth in the right window bear a striking resemblance in shape and motion to the sunlit portions of the astronaut's flight suit, which is obviously being reflected in the window.

The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine.

That was the temperature of the lunar surface in those circumstances. Since the film wasn't touching the lunar surface, those measurements are irrelevant.

Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with.

Patently false. Percy shows us only the missing fiducials that look like they've been the victim of cut and paste. He "neglects" to show the hundreds of other missing fiducials which are obviously obliterated by optical factors.

Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him? Answer: He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both.

Unfortunately the picture given as an example shows exactly the opposite scenario: the astronaut with the longest shadow is closest to the postulated light source. The picture given in evidence of the hypothesis clearly rejects it.

Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt).

It's difficult to know where to begin.

First, albedo has nothing to do with atmospheric conditions.

Second, the albedo of aged asphalt is 12-17%, not 7%.

Third, the albedo of the moon's surface is variously measured (different techniques, different places on the moon) as 12-30%.

Fourth, the albedo does not necessarily account for the peculiar effect of lunar surface material at phase angles of zero, a phenomenon which can even be observed from earth.

As you can see from the sequence here, although the viewing public were told at the time that the camera had burnt out, the lens is still working? the camera didn't actually burn out at all.

The center portion of the field of view in Apollo 12's camera was permanently damaged. The entire vidicon wasn't damaged, just the portion of it upon which the sun's image was focused. This comprised most of it, rendering it fairly useless for documentary television coverage. "Burned out" is a simplification which suffices for the public.

Hoax believers do this a lot. They point out that the simplified explanations aren't entirely accurate. But that's why they're simplifications.

Apollo 15 astronauts weren't told to point their camera at the sun, but rather to point it up-sun, which is an entirely different thing altogehter. The LRV's camera had a lens hood to prevent the sun from shining directly into the lens.

...the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject.

No. While the camera was fairly firmly mounted to the RCU, the RCU was not fairly firmly attached to the space suit. "Strapped to their chest" is a gross overstatement.

A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing.

The "gauntlets" weren't pressurized. The heavy-looking gloves with the silicone rubber tips were protective gloves that slid over the slim, black gloves with the knobby knuckles that facilitated movement.

I can change my Canon lenses in work gloves just fine.

The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to...

No such precaution was mandated. The film was meant to be changed wherever and whenever it was needed.

How do you explain why the 'Sun' having a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?

Optics. There is no such thing as a perfect lens.

As stated earlier, two light sources would combine together and the shadows would still fall in the same direction

The assembled panorama has a horizontal field of view of about 150°. Maybe this has something to do with why the shadows appear to converge.

Contrary to the author's assertions, light sources that combine will cast two shadows, not single divergent or convergent shadows.

Dr. David Groves who works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used.

No, Dr. Groves has produced computations which are carried out to an unbelievable asserted degree of precision. His angles are measured in ten-thousandths of a degree, which would be sufficient to locate the hotspot on the boot to about 0.002 inch. The spot itself is much larger than that.

In fact Groves' analysis is based on a number of questionable assumptions which he buries in the back of Percy's book.

he has calculated that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.

Groves' purported accuracy is pure fantasy. He says 30 cm +/- 6 cm. In fact, 6 cm is far too small an error for his assumptions. In fact the light source could coincide with the photographer, and the EVA video confirms that Armstrong was standing in full sun when he took these photos. The most reflective thing on the lunar surface is an astronaut's space suit, so that's obviously what's making the hot spot.

The print was pushed in development too, so it appears brighter in the photo than it would have in real life.

If Groves' hypothesis were true, this would set up a near-phase point light scenario. Every amateur photographer is familiar with that if he uses a flash attached to his camera. His subject will be "framed" on one side by a hard-edged shadow that would closely follow the subject's contours.

None of those effects can be seen in the photos.

Further, the fill light for these photos clearly comes from below, i.e., the lunar surface.

Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.

Jan Lundberg is a mechanical engineer. He cannot be presumed to be an expert on lighting. Percy and Bennett use Lundberg as an "expert" in a number of things which don't relate to his expertise.

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia ...

Uncritical analysis at its best. The hoax believers cannot produce the newspaper articles they say were written about this. Nor can they explain the discrepancy between the "wee hours of the morning" in their story, and the fact that the live moonwalk was at noon in Australia.

He worked at Goldstone as a Comms Engineer during the Apollo missions ...

... and has completely dismissed David Percy's work as having any merit.

Air inside the module was pressurized to 1/3 sea level atmosphere, so why no sound and vibration?

Because the air inside the spacecraft is irrelevant to the production of sound. The air outside (or lack thereof) is what produces the roar associated with a rocket engine (or lack thereof).

The "bang" heard by shuttle astronauts is the ignition transient of the RCS thrusters. Apollo rocket engines have those same transients at ignition, but they do not persist in steady-state operation.

Further, the LM astronauts had their helmets on, isolating the microphones from ambient cockpit noise. And those mikes are designed to filter out ambient noise anyway. You have to be right up close to them in order to record sound through them.

The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas

Only when fired in an atmosphere. The reddish cloud is the reaction of nitrogen tetroxide with ambient air. No ambient air, no reaction. Further, even on earth you don't get a sustained red cloud. That's only at ignition when you preinject N2O4 in order to smoothe out the ignition. After the propellant mix reaches normal proportions there is no smoke and very little visible flame.

The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today.

No.

The 5000 Fahrenheit of heat produced from the 10,000 lb thrust engine should have produced at least some volcanic rock.

5,800 F in the center of the combustion chamber, 2,800 F at the exit plane, and perhaps 800 F at the impingement.

10,000 lbf at full thrust, 2,600 lbf at hover thrust.

If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that was boiled at only 1000 Celsius.

... continuously for years and years and years, compared to a few seconds from the engine plume of the lunar module.

How did the Apollo 12 crew manage to capture footage of the Surveyor III craft that had landed at their landing site in April '67.

They didn't. David Percy can't tell the difference between a simulation done for the news reporters, and actual footage. What a brilliant photo analyst he is.

Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government?

The nadir of public excitement occurred at Apollo 15, not Apollo 12. So why wasn't Apollo 16 similarly sabotaged for public relations purposes?

If we look out of the window we see blue? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?

Scattering. What a concept.

the picture on the left shows the Odyssey after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.... ..do they look similar to you?

Not in the least. Those who actually know what they're looking at can tell which sector of the SM is involved. These pictures show diametrically opposite views of a service module.

In fact, if you look closely, you will see the light reflecting off the wires above the astronaut.

Funny how that reflection is exactly the same length and orientation as the VHF antenna, and doesn't point upwards as would have to be the case if it were taught and pulling the astronaut, nor catenary as would have to be the case if it were slack.

when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did Nasa only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly?

Perhaps because NASA knows more about radiation than the author or his mentors?

The doctors and dentists have to worry about occupational exposure, which is about 0.14% that of a lethal (LD 50/30). There is a very large difference between legal limits of exposure and biological factors of exposure.

Also, NASA knows the difference between particle radiation and EM radiation.

Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep.

The latter opinion, of course, having come from a vast amount of subsequent research in which Dr. Van Allen participated.

Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation.

Accepted by whom? And whatever happened to the six feet of lead we were told was required?

The only thing that would protect the film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing...

Lead is the worst substance you can use to shield against the particle radiation discussed in this paragraph. By comparison the ISS uses polyethylene slabs two or three inches thick to protect from this same type of radiation.

Clearly this analysis was written by someone who has almost no clue about what kinds of radiation are in the Van Allen belts, how strong it is, what its effect on biological organisms is, and how best to shield against it.

The second piece of footage to the right was taken the next day...

Or so claims the narrator. The narrator is wrong. If the author had consulted the original downlinks, he would have seen his error. Unfortunately the hoax believers prefer to try to poke holes in secondary and tertiary sources rather than see if the primary sources support their contentions.

I would like to know how the TV signal from the Lunar Rover was relayed to Houston when the satellite dish it was sending the signal through was moving all over the place when the Rover was on the move?

The footage given as evidence is 16mm DAC footage, not downlink footage. There are only a few seconds of bona fide video footage of the rover in motion, and it's of poor quality as would be expected from a rover in motion.

It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface and what do we see... a flame... Therefore this piece of footage alone proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!

Tautological argumentation at its best:

no visible flame = hoax
visible flame = hoax

If these two observations are to be taken at face value, the only logical conclusion is that the presence or absence of a flame has no bearing on whether it was hoaxed; there is no discernible correlation.

It's difficult to tell whether we are seen a reflection or flame. In any case it would be quite within the behavior of an Aerozine engine of that size to flare for half a second during its ignition transient. If you see my web site

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

you can follow a link to a video from which I have extracted still frames that show the ignition of a Delta II second stage rocket -- almost identical in all respects to the LM ascent motor. You can see it ignite in a vacuum, sans red smoke. You can see it flare of a second and then settle into steady state.

In most LM liftoff footage the transient would be lost in the flurry of interstage materials.

It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow.

Most certainly it is due to the aperture being opened. It has all the hallmarks of a decrease in f-stop. Apparently the author believes a dark shadow should somehow have gotten lighter. That's not necessarily the case. One can open the lens by one or two stops without a dark shadow necessarily going from black to dark gray. Nevertheless Armstrong gets brighter, and the exterior bezel of the window gets lighter.

Clearly this person has no experience with photographic exposure.