You know, this whole 'ACA out of detent' solution to this problem provides circumstantial but a powerfully persuasive argument that the missions really did take place as advertised. This procedure that Jay described really resonates with me as an elegant, 'out of the square' solution to a real-life problem. But if the mission was a hoax, this problem would never have 'existed'.

Imagine if Apollo were a massive hoax. Common sense would dictate that the bogus spacecraft specs would include circuitry that sensed when the LM had landed, because this is what you would expect to see and accordingly, its inclusion would be a surprise to no-one. The additional weight and complexity would be irrelevant - the hoax spacecraft isn't really landing on the moon so it simply doesn't matter.

No-one orchestrating a hoax would add such a twist as to include an engineering solution to a problem that no-one in the target audience would ever suspect might occur. Why would you? All that would do is provide another opportunity to be 'caught out' by adding further detail to an already hugely complex fraud.

Instead, what we see here is an engineering solution to a real life problem that would only exist if the LM were being designed to perform this task required of it - to land on the moon. It is not proof, but it is an example of the sort of minor detail that adds so much consistency to the overall body of evidence.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams