"Your comparison of the S5 "Payload: 47,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory" to a D5 LEO capability is grossly misleading."
[D5? You mean Delta IVH, I'll call it D4]

I wasn't comparing the D4 with S5, my comparison with the S5 was to say it was about 5 times bigger (in lift capacity) than existing HLVs. I mentioned the D4 LEO number to compare to the SaturnIB (which is the largest launcher planned to be used for "Gemini to Moon"). LEO number is also good in comparison to Proton (1/2 the price of any Hvy booster)- it's only problem is it's not an American booster:).

"The S5 payload to LEO was 140 tons vs 28 for the D4"

The Saturn 5 in 14 May 1973 was "LEO Payload: 118,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit" [which in tons is 129.8 tons]. The estimated payload for D4 is, "LEO Payload:25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit" Ref: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dellarge.htm

"While the D4 is close to the shuttle capacity, the shuttle boosters can launch 75 to 85 tons to LEO when you take into account the mass of the shuttle."

If you build a Shuttle C....
At the moment (assuming you want to launch something in say about +2 years from now), the Delta IVH will get the most payload on a lunar trajectory (or gets most payload on the Moon). If the D4 payload must first go into LEO, then the D-4 payload to the transfer orbit would be less.

"Close enough to count as a heavy lift booster system in my book. Modifications have been suggested which can make better use of that capacity without requiring massive infrastructure investments at the cape for a completely new HLLV or S5 rebuild."

Having a Shuttle C would be nice, but you don't need to the Shuttle C or similar sized booster to get crew to the Moon.
There are problems with using a Shuttle C. The problems aren't technical problems, they are political problems. Political problems are not unimportant, as the saying goes, "space is all about politics".
The political land mines on the Shuttle C path are numerous and daunting. First, there is the Mars crowd, which wouldn't be happy with a Shuttle C which "can only lift" 75-85 tons, they want the Shuttle Z.
Then there is the NASA Shuttle people, they want 5 billion to "just" upgrade the Shuttle. Then there's the crowd that wants Shuttle II, which looks to be panning out to spend the 4.5 billion for SLI in studies and more studies- same type of people who gave us the X-33 project. Then we have Boeing & Lockmart folk- who will say anything to get more tax dollars, but at same time don't want to waste the asset they have already spent money in developing the EELV.
My judgement on the matter is that by going the Shuttle C route, would end up wasting years of farting around and billions of dollar spend on matters "relating" developing the Shuttle C- AND I don't know if even after years and billions spent that we would get a Shuttle C.
My suggestion is if you want Shuttle C, then you should favor getting the Shuttle into private hands or even some non-profift organization type thingy. Once you have Shuttle owned by "something" then these people might have the motivation to look for way of getting more value of the Shuttle system- by developing a Shuttle C.

"As for you low cost lunar option, it's pretty obvious why that plan was abandoned. The life support module is a space suit! I keep making these comments because I assume you have bothered to look for something more realistic. What exactly do you expect to be accomplished with a space suit as living quarters?"

Living quarters can be prelanded as can everything else needed for mission, including a return vehicle.
The reason for low cost option, is because I want to go to the Moon "and do the other things", now, not wait for another decade to pass. We could do a 5 billion manned crew lunar mission starting now and be done within 5 years. This would not require waiting for the ISS to be finished.

"The launch vehicles needed for Mars can put a similar size habitat module on the Moon capable of supporting an extended stay on the Moon. Saying we should focus on the Moon because we can land a man there for a few hours with current launch vehicles instead of pursuing real research capabilities is definitely returning to a flags and footprints agenda."
Not few hours, but a few weeks.
I don't have anything against a "flags and footprints" as long as it leads to "more footprints". In other words I would favor a "flags and footprints" Mars mission if leads to colonization of Mars. The question is how do we get to the point of actually colonizing Mars before the century is done?
I think we should start now, because there is a lot to do before this can becomes a reality.