There are around a dozen ideas which form the centre of the hoax argument. I will be addressing each of them as time permits, but in the meantime here's a summary of how I see the state of play...
The original basis of the hoax theory was the apparent inconsistencies in official photos, film and other records. TV programs such as "Did We Land on the Moon?" relied heavily on visual images to create impact. For example, photos of converging shadows were easy to see and appeared to be black-and-white evidence ("the camera never lies"). These were the "wow" exhibits which gave the hoax theory its impetus. Although the theory had plenty of other evidence to offer, it is unlikely that it would have attracted much attention if it were not for the photos.
In the years since then, the original photographic anomalies have all been correctly explained to the extent that they are beyond argument. The "converging shadows" phenomena, for example, is nothing more than a simple lens effect created by any camera. Although people who are new to the theory are still routinely fooled by the original exhibits, hard-core theory proponents have been forced to change tack in order to keep the theory alive.
These days the evidence is less focused. Although there is still much debate over photos and film, the emphasis has shifted to other matters such as rocket technology and human physiology. Evidence tends to shift and turn as new ideas are tried out and discounted. In short, the hoax theory has degenerated into a motley collection of increasingly far-fetched ideas strapped together to try and prop up a hypothesis which has lost all its primary evidence.
The usual way of addressing this collection of evidence is simply to work through the items and answer each point one at a time. I have found that each item of evidence falls into one of two categories:
Next Page: The Logic of the Hoax Argument