Phil, I don’t have any idea what he’s babbling about. As I said in a similar GD thread, I hope the Japanese surveyor finds a monolith, rather than detritus of a 30-year old science project (which, of course, is not meant to belittle the efforts of those who got the project onto the moon).
You know, if you actually read through the whole OP (quite a chore), it has some real gems in it. All emphasis mine.
RiverRat wrote:
Oh my gosh! No white meters or view ponders? How can you have a camera without any white meters or view ponders?
Obviously if there were night clubs on the moon, they would have to be pressurized…hey! That’s got to be more proof of a hoax! I mean, who would believe there were clubs on the moon?
-m
It is available! 
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
You might also want to check out
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
It is not complete, but pretty good for what has been addressed.
You might also check out the other GQ thread on the Fox show where I’ve already tackled a number of similar claims.
Fluttering flags: 1) The flags have a pole at the top to hold them extended so they are unfurled. One pole bent during deployment, so it looks particularly curly, like it is waving. 2) When the astronauts are wiggling the poles, the flags wiggle. This is direct motion caused by the astronauts themselves. Every shot in the Fox show of a fluttering flag had an astronaut wiggling the pole. 3) There is one show of a flag fluttering as the LEM blasts off to return to space. Rocket thrust.
The crappy tv images - the TV cameras were a technical challenge. They were behind schedule. Better cameras came along later. One mission they actually burned the camera out by pointing it too close to the sun. That flight had to use studio mockups for dramatizations of what was occurring.
Not all the photos were perfect. Only the good photos were shown. Go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and you can find pictures with glares. Also, pictures were cropped during developing to center the images.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
How did the astronauts take such good pictures? 1) They had great cameras. 2) They had lots of practice.
As for manipulating the cameras, changing film cartridges, etc, while the gloves are pressurized, they’re not quite clubs. There is some dexterity to the gloves - that’s why they’re gloves and not mittens like the Russians use. They can be stiff, but not impossibly so. And the equipment was modified with special attachments to be operable. I can tell you this with certainty. I work building space tools. Many times we don’t bother starting from scratch, but take a commercial tool and modify it. For instance, the Shuttle has a ratchet wrench that is a standard ratchet with a couple slight modifications. Mainly the addition of a handle grip and tether point, plus swapping out the small ratchet direction lever for a slightly larger lever. Then it is degreased and dry film lubricant is added. Velcro is put on the handle. Similar things are done to other tools frequently - we change a lever or two to make it a little larger. We can test this using pressure chambers. In fact, we have a glove box - a sealed box that can suck pressure out to create the right pressure difference, and practice these tasks without being in a full suit. It is not impossible, it just takes practice.
The shadows questions have already been addressed multiple times. Check the previous links to the Bad Astronomer’s page.
Why is the flag on the lander and the words “United States” visible in shadow? There is plenty of light reflecting off the moon’s surface itself. It’s bright enough that we see it here at night, of course it’s bright on the surface. The flag and words are on the side of the lander in the location where the rover was stowed. The rover has been removed, so the white and color parts are set in a black field. That is not on the gold foil, but a black background. Ergo it stands out, but looks like the dark shadow is too dark.
Why don’t the still camera photos match the film footage? Simple - different cameras were used. Nobody bothered to take simultaneous video and still shots.
For radiation, check the links at the BA site. There is a link to a description of the radiation exposure.
The Apollo 1 fire - it is ridiculous to assert this would be an assassination of Grissom. Why would NASA kill Grissom in a way guaranteed to get his death investigated? That tragedy nearly derailed the whole program, it took valuable time from the development schedule, and almost cost us making it to the moon by the deadline. If NASA’s goal was that deadline, why do something most likely to get the project canceled, or make it fail?
About the fire - that post claims it should be obvious the dangers of the pure O2 environment. However, it wasn’t obvious. Understand, the test conditions were more dangerous than the actual flight would be. Here’s why. The operational pressure for the flight was to be about 5 psia pure oxygen. The materials used are flame retardant materials specially developed for spaceflight (and since made commercially). However, the test was to be a full systems check, including pressurizing the capsule. In order to achieve the 5 psi internal pressure, they had to run the pressure up to 19.7 psia. At 19.7 psia pure oxygen, even flame resistant materials become incredibly flammable. A spark in a frayed wire ignited Velcro straps and they went up in an instant. But this was only a risk during the test, not for the actual flight. Nobody really felt that a test could be dangerous - they were wrong.
The Fox program calls the fire mysterious and unexplained. That is an outright lie. See explanation above, which came out in the extensive post fire investigation. The moon hoax believers take any death and give it a mysterious atmosphere, even if it is fully explained. That is the way conspiracy theorists work. Just look at the UL about Clinton death toll. Exact same phenomenon.
There was a set made. It was not to prove it could be faked, but to use for training and for demos during the flight that the camera was blinded.
The golf “slice” argument - this shows the inanity of the moon hoaxers, and they’ll grab onto anything, no matter how silly. I don’t know anything about golf terms, but if I saw the ball fly off at an angle from intended target direction, I might call it a slice. Or as said before, they might not have even seen where the ball went, just decided to kid Shepard.
The picture of Armstrong’s first step was not from the ground. It was from a deployed tray on the side of the lander. There is a fair set of pictures of the location at the following location.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/library.htm
Scroll down to “LM-5 Structures Handbook in pdf format”
http://www.thebest.net/jduncan/pdf/lm5hout.pdf
That’s a fairly long document. Go to Chapter two. Beginning page 2-1 is a series of sketches and photos showing the MESA. It deploys on the side of the lander, and is where the camera was mounted. Unfortunately there is not a clear picture of the camera.
The pressure in the suits and the astronauts - they could bend the joints because they were specially sewn to be constant volume joints, so as not to increase pressure when bending. The joints were a little stiff, but not inordinately so. They were about 5 psia.
What about a signal from the moon? They made a signal from the moon - tons of radio signals. Oh, you mean a visible signal. The problem is resolution. They couldn’t make a signal big enough to be seen. I would like to see a detailed description of how many magnesium flares it would take to make a bright enough glow to be visible on the lighted part of the full moon. Those who think it can be done get cranking and show me how.
I can’t evaluate the photo remarks without seeing which photos he means. But the fluttering has been addressed above.