This is too easy. No stars visible in the photos? That's because the camera speed is set fast. Cross hairs appearing behind equipment in the foreground? That's what happens when you photograph a white object using a black crosshair and overexpose it. Incorrect/diverging shadow angles? A matter of perspective. Shadow angles can look different at different distances. Lack of moon dust on the LEM leg pads? Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm sure there was plenty prior to dustoff (sorry about the pun). Lack of blast crater? That's because in a vacuum the blast effects are spread out much wider than in atmosphere. Flags waving in the wind (but no atmosphere)? There is no wind on the moon. The flag was mounted on a vertical pole and the top connected by a horizontal pole. When the astronaut moves it, it "waves".

You seem unaware that conditions are very different on the moon. Fortunately the NASA engineers were well aware of that fact. That allowed the USA to achieve the preeminent peacetime achievment of the 20th Century. May I suggest the following website:
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.
He is a physicist who cuts through the moon hoax nonsense with clear, easy to understand language.

The Concorde was a beautiful achievement, but I guess I'm just not as impressed with champaigne as you are. In a New York to Los Angeles race I'd take a stretch limo over a Top Fuel Dragster as well, but I'd never mistake the limo's rather pedestrian velocities for "performance". Same with the Concorde vs. the SR-71.