I did not contradict myself. I clearly explained why the rover tracks do not show up well. I will further point out that the men were going around the rover kicking up dust, as is clearly shown in the videos. They spent a good bit of time running around the rover, as shown by the number and depth of the tracks. So, don't you think it a little presumptuous to think that the men themselves did not obliterate most of the tracks themselves by all that shuffling and kicking up dust? I did not contradict myself, and I am not wrong. You gave the proof of this yourself:
"it shows the front tire with footprints right behind it, clear and visible,"
Oh? And those footprints did not kick up any dust, I suppose? Fill yourself a sandbox with fine dust and roll a tire through it. Now, walk around in the dust for a bit, making sure you kick up the same amount of dust as the men's boots did. Now take a picture of it with ultra bright (blinding) spotlights on it. When done, report to me how much of the tire track shows.
As to this set of photos
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/15lemplustracks.jpg, once again, you are proving yourself wrong with your own evidence. The lighting is different -because- the photos were taken at diferent times of the lunar day. Look at the index marks on the photos. If is self explanitory. Now as to why the track do show up in the second picture. Exposure, exposure, EXPOSURE! The sun is shining at a different angle, so the exposure is NOT the same in the two pictures. Add into that the posprodution color corection to show what is being featured, and you get low exposure on the -white- suit of the astronaut in the first photo, and a higher exposure of just the -dark gray- of the landscape. If you are focusing on just the landscape for your exposure and light settings, OF COURSE you are going to see more details. If the picture of the astronaut would have been taken with the same exposure, then the tire tracks may have shown up (angle of light in time of day still aplies) but the man himself would have been nothing but a super-bright washout in the photo, perhaps ruining the entire piece of film.
And no, you are completely and totally wrong about what dust would land on the lander. I will show you why.
This is a thruster on earth:
Note how the thrust pushes against the air, forming vortexes (little swirly things) that would carry the dust up onto the lander. The dust can curve back up and land on the lander.
This is the thruster on the moon:
There is no air to push on, so the only vortexes created are in the plume itself. This means there can NOT BE a dust cloud, as there is nothing holding the dust near the lander. It is all pushed away.
Now to your theory on there being no dust on the landing feet. Simply put, there is dust, just in such a minor amount that you can not see it. Dust is not glue. Some may stick, but not all. Add into that the low exposure in the film, and the lander will stay looking fresh and clean.
Next.
