Most of these are repeat claims on 90% of the moon hoax pages. They've been addressed ad infinitum here, at Clavius, and in the BA's book.

Funding now is less (but only about 50% so in real terms, according to The Economist magazine). In any case, this would only have slowed down further space exploration, not stopped it completely.

At the peak of Apollo, NASA funding was up to about 6% of the US total budget. It is currently around 0.5%. As for budget limiting space exploration, budgetary constraints are only one factor. The political issue is the real driver. The budget available was redirected from building Saturn Vs that could launch interplanatery missions to building Space Shuttles that were to reduce the cost of access to low Earth orbit (LEO). The concept was rapid turn around with reusable vehicles that therefore were cheaper over the long run, and used less fuel. The trade off was the limitation to LEO. Theoretically, the Shuttle could be outfitted with a payload that would be a CSM/LM combo type of package or the like. There would be practicality issues of fitting the payload bay constraints, load issues, etc. But the point is the political emphasis shifted from lunar and planetary exploration to LEO missions - launching and repairing communication satellites, providing military payloads their launch capability (removed after Challenger), microgravity research, preparation for, development of, construction of, and suppling and servicing of the Space Station. See, Station was originally supposed to be built about 1990 - about 10 years after Shuttle was created. That was part of the justification of Shuttle - as a cheap and easy resupply and support vehicle for station. Station just took longer to get off the ground (hee hee).

Also, and most importantly, space exploration did NOT stop. We shifted gears, and pointed the focus on LEO and examining Earth and developing knowledge for future exploration missions. And of course this ignores the dozens of robotic missions NASA has been carrying out all along - Pathfinder, Galileo, Cassini, Stardust, and Eros just to name a few.

Today we have technology that is many orders of magnitude more advanced than what was available in the 1960s. The computer in the Lunar Module had about the same power as a pocket calculator today. If they could do so much then, why can they do so little today?

Political will. See above.

In fact, all the photos look very much as though they were taken in the dark using very bright spotlights.

Describe what you mean. What, the backdrop is black, and the ground and foreground objects are brightly lit? And we know why that is. The ground is brightly lit by the Sun. The objects are lit by the Sun and by reflected light from the ground. The sky is black because there is no atmosphere to scatter the blue light. As for very bright spotlights, I think that would be a pretty good description of the Sun.

another [photo] shows a structure apparently floating in space a few metres above the ground.

This is the picture directly below this statement, with the circle and the letter "D" on the reflected image in the helmet. The "floating object" is a reflection of the flag. This can be demonstrated by looking at the other pictures of the Apollo 11 landing site. The flag is pointed mostly toward Buzz Aldrin, which is why it is not a large rectangle but a small image. It appears floating because the pole is not visible in the highly distorted reflection, and the pole is such a small detail that it washes out.

A third photo shows two astronauts reflected in the visor of a third one. (Yet there were never supposed to be more than two people on the Moon at the same time).

This one makes me giggle. The picture included is this one:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../alsj.trio.jpg

That's from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal on the page called "Fun Images". It is a deliberate fake made for that site as a joke, along with a bunch of other manipulated photos for various reasons. It is most definitely fake, and admitted as a fake, and in no way, shape, form, or fashion is proof of anything but that the ALSJ folks have a sense of humor.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...sj.funpix.html
Scroll down to "The Real Secret of Apollo 12".
The fact that the hoax believers use this picture is proof of how little effort they put into finding the answers, and how much the put into reguritating each other's work.

Other artifacts include a photo of the Lunar Rover with crosswires (supposedly from the camera that took the photo) which appear behind part of the photo. Other photos show crosswires at the wrong angle.

He means the reseau plate and the fiducils. Already beat to death, but I wanted to point out the second part of the claim, the "crosswires" at the wrong angle. In certain pictures, the grid appears at an angle to the cut of the photograph, as opposed to horizontal and vertical as would be expected. The answer is that the camera was held at an angle to the image when the picture was taken, and then the image was cropped on the ground to make a prettier picture with the horizon horizontal. The originals at ALSJ show the grid fits the original edges of the page.

d) The first shots of Neil Armstrong landing were supposedly taken by a camera attached to one of the legs of the Lunar Module. Yet this camera cannot be seen in a photo taken shortly afterwards showing Buzz Aldrin walking down the ladder.

Wrong. First, the TV camera was not attached to a leg of the lander, but the door of the MESA. The MESA is the panel on the astronaut's left as descending the ladder. It is not easy to see in the picture below the description "d", but if you look at the gap between the ladder and the gold foil on the LM, there is a sort of triangular region where lunar soil is visible. Splitting that image is a strut. I'm not sure the identity of the strut, but the MESA door is obscured at the bottom of the image just below that opening, on the far side.

Here is a close up from ALSJ:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-40-5863HR.jpg

There is also this later picture from approximately the same vantage point, of Armstrong working at the MESA.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...40-5894det.jpg
It has also been overdeveloped because of the poor exposure:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-5894enhnc.jpg

The strut appears to be the support for the MESA door. At least that is my impression.

Descriptions of images found here.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../images11.html

a) the film would have either melted (in the heat) or snapped (in the cold). Unlike the astronauts, the cameras used were simply shielded from the Sun. The astronauts themselves apparently had special water-cooled spacesuits.

Yes, the spacesuits were water cooled, because the bulk of the transient heat load was from the astronauts themselves. You dress up in 5 layers of plastic, and see how quickly you start sweating. The cameras didn't need to be water cooled. There was no convection to worry about, and limited conduction to worry about, so the only real temperature issue was solar radiation. That was designed for by using reflective white paint or polished silver surfaces. The cameras would neither heat up too quickly nor cool off too quickly, keeping them at the correct thermal range for the film.

b) the visors would have cracked if they had been partly in a hot area and partly in a cold area (i.e., if a shadow fell across them).

Ha. No understanding of thermodynamics at all. The visors wouldn't crack even if they had an external thermal differential because they maintained an internal constant temperature at human comfort levels. Objects do not instantaneously change temperature - especially in a purely radiative environment. While in sunlight, the helmet (suit, camera, whatever) would be absorbing some solar radiation and reflecting some. If put into a shadow, it would not be absorbing, so it would begin emitting thermal radiation. Either process takes time to effect a change. The object as a whole has a temperature change, because if one part becomes cool, the heat in the other part will move by conduction through to the cold part.

c) most of the electrical equipment would have malfunctioned.

Why? Did the engineers not realize the temperature ranges and design for them?

At the bottom, he has his email and a request for feedback, comments, and alternate explanations. I'm tempted to send him an email to point him at this board, particularly this thread, with a comment that if he truly wants explanations here is where to look. But I doubt it would really matter