Same old same old. There's nothing here. Apparently debunkers don't understand the subject enough to understand things properly.
It also does the usual trick of taking fragments of data in isolation and trying to use that as proof.
For example, the moon rocks. No, a moon rock on its own is not evidence of the Apollo landings. Corroborating film, TV and photgraphic images of that sample where the details in them match every orbital image ever taken since the missions, where the transmissions showing their collection were received by dishes pointing at the moon, where the hardware used to travel there and collect those samples has been imaged from lunar orbit along with other evidence of human activity at the landing sites, where images of Earth broadcast during those sample collection missions match exactly the images takn by weather satellites, where things behave exactly as they should in lunar gravity, all those things combined act as proof.
Likewise the LRRR. Yes, you can get a signal return from the moon, but not with the same level of response. Yes, unmanned proves could be a reflector, but we have evidence of the LRRR being placed and so on and so on and so on.
It does nothing but collate the usual suspects into one place. JAQs off for 3 hours and proves nothing. Starting from a premise of "it could have been faked" does not prove that it was.
