I repeat: The Rocketdyne F-1 is one of the most well-understood rocket engines in the industry. It's the '67 Mustang of rocket engines. The combustion instabilities you mention were solved at the appropriate stage in the development process. (In short, Bill Kaysing doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.) The F-1 was eventually so stable that bombs could be detonated in the nozzle and the resulting oscillations would damp out in milliseconds.

Bill Kaysing is the source for most of these arguments, and it's the most laughable bunch of tripe imaginable. He's simply making it up. First, he has no expertise. His degree was in English literature and he has had no formal technical training. Second, he left Rocketdyne in 1963 for personal reasons, long before the events he "witnessed" actually happened.

I would like to see the average hoax believer attempt to define any of the terms in the revised initial post. It irritates me when people smugly question Apollo engineering without knowing much if anything about engineering. It's like the patient's mother-in-law standing behind the surgeon and telling him he's doing it all wrong.