Mmm, yes, unknownromeo, every one of your bits of "evidence" have been explained. Most were obvious to those who already knew from other experience, things such as the nature of the lenses used on the cameras taking the pictures, the nature of the film stock used, how light does and does not work, and the difference between the photographic process, and natural vision. If you learn more about photography, you will understand it all quite well.

By the way, the reason why we will see repeats of the cameras cutting off occasionally up there, followed by a fairly obvious lame excuse, is simple as well. We, and our competing terrestrial spacefarers all have top secret satellites up there, which the cameras will occasionally catch coming in to view, and the cameras will have to be cut off.

Fortunately, there is enough debris left strung out all around the planer by now, that all sorts of space-trash can be cited to explain pretty much anything you think you see.

Oh yes, and so do I.

NASA produced an abundant supply of photos and video footage to support their moon landing. But, it soon became evident that there was something a bit fishy about these photos on the moon; ever noticed that the angle of the shadows do not match up? Shadows are caused by light sources. On the moon, there should only be one light source: the Sun. So, logically, all shadows should be parallel to each other. Only shadows in the photos of moon landing are not. In fact, the shadows in many of the photos run in different directions. It’s almost as if the shadows are caused by… yes, multiple lights on a film set!

In yet another example of the technicians on set just being sloppy, one of the moon landing photos shows a “moon rock” which has a perfect letter ‘C’ printed on it. The perfect symmetry of the letter shows that it is not naturally occurring. Now, it’s perfectly credible that a prop used on a film set would be marked with a reference letter. But there is no plausible argument for the “C” just being naturally weathered into the surface of the rock. As a result, NASA came up with a different, though no less implausible, explanation for the rock with the “C”. According to them, it’s a stray hair. It can’t be more ridiculous than this!

lol.. i'm sure the "idiots" at NASA might have seen a big letter C before they took the picture...just saying, you're grasping at straws here...

The human mind is trained to see particular patterns to speed up processing for self-defense mechanisms.
This is the reason we see "faces" in toast or clouds. The "C" is just a curved deformity in the rock surface but we see it as the alphabetical C. This is just how our minds work.

maybe it's a clam shell...

I know y'all hate to admit it but let's face it...the lunar missions were fake....our astronaut heros only fooled us & millions others for decades, but the truth always comes out

Meanwhile, in this universe . . .

I know y'all hate to admit it but let's face it...the lunar missions were fake....our astronaut heros only fooled us & millions others for decades, but the truth always comes out

"sigh" ... i think a bigger question would be why they never went back...