First assumption: The lunar lander made a smaller imprint in the soil.

How can you tell? The pads are hemispherical. The ground is rough. The camera is never at ground level. Are you Carnac the Magnificent, who can see through a pad to see how deep the impression in in the soil?


Second assumption: the footprints from the astronauts are deep.

Again, what are you basing this on? The landings were made early in the Lunar morning. The sun was very low on the horizon. The impressions made were not inches deep.

This can be checked quite readily. The phase of the Moon on the landing date of Apollo 11 is discoverable, the time of the landing is known, therefor you can find what time of day it was on the Moon, therefore you can derive the angle of the sun, therefor you can calculate geometrically how deep the famous footprint is -- all without having to trust "NASA" with a single damned thing.


These are not attempts to dismantle an argument piecemeal. They are two direct descriptions of how the argument is so poorly thought out as to be unworthy of further work.