...As far as the LRO pics go, yes it is hard to dispute this recent evidence (unless there has been tampering) that shows proof of these landings. Having said this, I still have nagging concerns on some things.
It's fine to have nagging concerns - about pretty much anything. The issue is how you react when they're addressed.
Early on in this thread you expressed concern that the astronauts in the LM didn't have enough visibility out of their windows in order to land safely. Well, there's two ways of answering this - the technical and the non-technical.
The technical one would involve taking measurements from the astronaut's head to determine the angular size of the field of view, using either an actual LM or re-creating one using available specifications; and then using that information to attempt a landing using some sort of simulator software. In other words, the method that Grumman and NASA used to test the original LM. As others have pointed out, the astronauts themselves were intimately involved in the design and construction of the LMs, and then tested themselves endlessly using simulators which were themselves constantly updated as the LM's design was tinkered with.
The non-technical one (which I'm happy with given that I'm not an engineer but a lay person with interest in the topic) is watch either a documentary or some other show which illustrates the process in a non-technical manner. In this case the best example I can think of is the TV show "From the Earth to the Moon". The episode "Spider" was about the designing, construction and flight testing of the LM, and there's a two-minute sequence which specifically addresses the visibility issue. It's available on YouTube if you search
from the earth to the moon spider capsule problem solved and select the first video (I'd give the link but my browser won't show it). It shows Grumman engineers building a cardboard mock-up of the LM Ascent Stage front section to illustrate how wide a field of view the astronauts would have despite the window's small size.
Now, was this the exact sequence of events that happened in those Grumman offices? I don't know - quite possibly not. But it
illustrates in a non-technical way how the engineers approached and solved a known problem, and it has the advantage of showing just how close the astronaut's head was to the window, which in turn shows you how wide his field of view actually was.
But the thing about the difference between technical and non-technical explanations is that any problem you can uncover in a non-technical description like the "spider" episode is unlikely to be a show-stopper; more likely it's due to the simplification which comes from it being a non-technical explanation. However, if you're going to challenge a technical explanation you'd better be able to demonstrate equivalent technical knowledge, otherwise the people with the relevant technical knowledge are perfectly able to ignore you, simply because you wouldn't understand the technical explanation.
At which point I'm going to throw this one back at you: What do you do for a job? What sort of technical knowledge do you have specifically relevant to that job? What sort of problems do people raise with you that you can answer due to your technical knowledge? Do people ask you questions for which the answer is completely non-intuitive to the non-expert? Do you get annoyed when people without your technical knowledge challenge the answers you give?
In my case, my current expertise is payroll. Where I work, people are paid fortnightly (that's two weeks for those of you without
that bit of technical knowledge!) and the pay fortnight runs from Thursday to Wednesday, with people then being paid on the Thursday which starts the next pay fortnight. People who work part-time are paid for exactly the number of days they work in each fortnight. I had an employee who worked three days a week (that is, six days each pay fortnight), and she was changing which three days of the week she was working. I processed the necessary change, and sent her an email explaining that in the fortnight of the change she'd instead be paid only four days pay. She rang me up, completely baffled as to why she'd be getting only four days pay in a fortnight - after all, she wasn't changing the number of days she was working each fortnight: week after week she was working three days, and yet I was telling her that in one fortnight she was getting only four days pay. And yet I was convinced I was right. See if you can work out whether I was right, or had made a mistake (and yes, I make mistakes in this work).
Now, in cases like this where non-experts challenge us, sometimes the issue gets escalated until quite senior staff get involved. If we make mistakes in situations like this we get our backsides kicked and have to apologise and fix up the problem. So our mistakes have consequences too - not risking astronauts' lives or massively expensive spacecraft as is the case with JayUtah; but given the number of people who like to remind us about the mortgages they're paying, or who are in tears when we tell them bad news about their pay, the consequences of our mistakes can ripple through the lives of the people whose finances we've messed up: unpaid mortgages and bills, consequential financial penalties, embarrassment at the supermarket check-out when your card is declined and you have no cash. I'm sure you get the idea.
So yeah, we take our technical knowledge seriously, and we don't like it when non-experts presume to tell us on the basis of their completely non-technical knowledge that we've made a mistake of some sort, as we already know the likely causes and consequences of mistakes in that particular process.
And now, let's turn to your other concern - the LRO images and your statement "unless there has been tampering".
As I said earlier, it's fine to have nagging concerns. But this statement goes way beyond that. If you're going to make a claim of active tampering, I'd really like you to show some actual supporting evidence. Otherwise it belongs in the "They
could have done this" category of evidence-free accusation which is, frankly, little more than mud-slinging. So until you actually present some evidence to back up this sort of statement, I think we're free to ignore it.
Finally, you say you have some nagging concerns on "some things".
Well, out with it. What "things" are these?
Let's turn it around and look at Apollo in the bigger picture. The reality of Apollo is supported by multiple streams of evidence, many of which exist in countries other than the USA. These streams of evidence are mutually consistent and all point to the same conclusion - that Apollo was real and happened as described.
There are, for example, the lunar soil samples collected by the then USSR in the 1970s, which are geochemically comparable with the Apollo samples.
For another example, I've spoken to a few of the Australian people who worked at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station just outside Canberra, where I live. They were in control of their equipment, responsible for its maintenance and operation, and for training the people who worked there. They aimed their dish at points in space which were consistent with the Apollo spacecraft being where NASA said it was, and were receiving telemetry in real time. One of them even spoke to the Apollo 16 crew while they were on the Moon (which wasn't SOP - and if you knew much about Apollo you'd know why it wasn't SOP).
But one of the interesting things about these Honeysuckle guys is that they've even taken the time to try to work out if there was any way NASA might have faked Apollo under their noses without them realising (they concluded it was impossible, given what they knew about their own systems and the data they were receiving). And they were willing to do this as an intellectual exercise even though they have absolutely no doubt about the reality of Apollo. That's a level of open-mindedness which I'd humbly suggest you'd do well to follow.
