It shows footprints/track, how more convincing can that be.
The pirctures are not taken to disproove any stupid theories,
but to test the Sattlites camera.

Which one? I only see photographs with pointers stating there should be a flag where none can be seen. Alas, why I said they weren't very convincing, they aren't exactly made zoomed down to the details.

I wouldn't wonder so much about what is said to be the "footprints" but rather the lack thereof in the other Apollo pictures. It sure is a bit dissapointing - Google earth shows you high zoom levels but the latest tech Nasa satellite just gives an overview. I did expect way more...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Btw , mythbusters busted a bunch of the myths surrounding the landing , they tested the shadows , foot prints , flag ect..., and they all got busted.

Google Earth: any high resolution Picture seen there
is actually from Airplane pictures.
Only the raw, big scale pictures are from Sattelites,
thats why there is only high.res material for popular areas.

Given that, the sattelite in Moon orbit is actually quite high-res.

Well I don't know too much about the LRO's equipment but with a height of just 50km it actually was flying really low (still higher than planes but not THAT much higher). That's why I'm a bit disappointed as you'd think that they would integrate optics way superior to what airplanes carry around (considering the budget of the entire project)...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

Well, to be honest, they showed how you can get the shadows that are wrong according to the people that believe it didn't happen, but they also admitted there's no way to prove the shadows are correct or fake. You can get the shadows by a variation in height, but it could also be an error.

Then again from that test it looked pretty possible to fake the entire picture with models and all that actually.

I have to say though, that it's a bit nuts to believe they didn't land on the moon.

The mythbusters also had a huge flaw anyway when they did those photo-comparisons. They did such a nice job of getting a ground that reflects about as much as the moon's surface and got this original camera thing. But then they used a digital camera for their photos pretty much ruining lots of the "validity". This video pretty much describes why it was such a sad decision to use a digital camera instead of a comparable film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBxOmKQwAUI&annotation_id=annotation_828743&feature=iv

When it comes to do you believe the moon landing was real or not I don't really have an answer yet. There are certain things that are very strange (and I'm not talking about some stupid flag waving which literally gets busted everytime someone approaches this topic to make the hoax theory look stupid) and so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that at least the first mission(s) didn't happen but were just media events. Also things like the laser reflector on the moon are no evidence for the landing to happen as said. I don't doubt the equipment is there but it needn't get put there by a human - e.g. look at Russia and their reflector thingy or whatever it was. They put it there remotely...

Enjoy your meal
Toast