As I said, Alpha, you haven't started from an impartial position - "lets examine the evidence," you've already decided any explanation which refutes the conspiracy theory is invalid because the source is corrupt, so what is the point in asking questions in the first place?

Footprints? Answer - Particles of moon dust have a different size and shape from sand and don't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Try walking in spilt talcum powder

No Blast Crater? Answer - At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

From your starting point every possible explanation is dismissed with - corruption. It is the same with virtually all conspiracy theories.