Nice summary of all the obvious fake studio photos being passed off as from the actual lunar surface. The most intense light
is always coming from the back of the head of the "astronaut" doing the photography and all the shadows intersect in the field of
view. Pure BS, since remote light sources like the Sun cast essentially parallel shadows that converge at "infinity".
Then we have the ludicrous claim by the so-called lunar astronauts that they never saw any stars. That is a pure lie since
there is no atmospheric or dust backscatter of light from the lunar surface that would create such an effect. There is no
freaking way that stars would not be visible and instead a pure black wall would be. Any talk about the Sun's rays affecting
the optics is BS too since it is possible to take the shots from the shadow part of the lander and by even using a hand to
shield the lens. The key detail is that there is no photon flux being scattered into the camera lens from the direction it
is being pointed to. Again, if morons chime in and claim that the surface scatter can do this obscuring, then I say BS. Point
the camera upward and get the ground scatter out of the FOV.
These clowns routinely pulled back the gold-colored filter in their helmets and exposed their faces and eyes to full bore surface scatter
of sunshine. Look at the numerous photos they supposedly took themselves "on" the Moon. This is patent nonsense since
they would have experienced a severe case of snow blindness after a short period of time. Maybe that is why they saw no stars.
But they never claim this, so I am not going to project such an excuse at them. Their behaviour was typical studio acting and
not real extra-terrestrial travel.
Then we have the total lack of any ablation pattern from the powerful lander rocket at the base of the lander. It is physically
impossible for the dust not to show a radial ablation pattern. It is clear that there is plenty of dust there and not bare rock.
To believe this Moon landing hoax requires religious faith and not scientific empiricism. Details are not "mere" they can be show