Your huge post was unnecessary. I'm reluctant to respond, because of the implication and elevation of the discussion as one worthy of debate.
1) Your claim that "you can't control a 6-9 million part machine with that little" still stands -- unsupported. After your lengthy post, your second attempt, it's still only your word. While digital can be considered superior to analog in many applications, analog is still powerful. We built cars and airplanes and factories and trains in 1900 that could be controlled without any digital computers. Before GPS, there was radar and sonar. Digital TV didn't take off until the 1990s, yet homeowners had no problem receiving satellite TV, even HD, with analog decoders and analog TVs in the 1980s. Even in today's digital age, basic communication with satellites -- telemetry, telecommands, and ranging, remain analog, with low data rates, due to low link budgets making digital communication unsuitable and unreliable. The computational demands for controlling a rocket from the ground are not that demanding. After firing thrusters, there is plenty of time to compute new orbits and trajectories, and plan the next maneuver. While the distance changes continuously, orbits and trajectories do not. Come on, this isn't rocket science. Ooops, my bad.
2) With careful planning -- everything about the camera pointing can be predicted and pre-calculated. A high schooler can do it with pencil and paper. Round-trip delay is 2.5 seconds. One-way voice delay is 1.25 seconds. From a 3-2-1 countdown, it's not that hard to anticipate liftoff E-X-A-C-T-L-Y, unzoom and then pan up. The camera control doesn't seem all that precise, as the lunar module goes to the top of the image, then down, then zigzags to the left.
3) I think NASA never imagined that a few decades later, a less educated America would doubt moon missions based on photo processing and videos of poor quality. The most value of the photos would be to show as much detail as you can, with the latest technology to improve contrast. My mother was married in the 1950s, and the wedding photos have been retouched -- I still believe she got married. But for sure, NASA absolutely has time, experts, and money to enhance pictures taken on missions. Anyone qualified to develop and process the photos would be qualified enough to enhance the contrast during processing. Many missions are mapping missions, where high resolution data are processed, and many photos are composed to form one large accurate image. Such resources are essential to the mission.
4) You said they used batteries, primary and backup. You were wrong. 12 FEET is not a measure of volume. I admit that 3-D packing technology is challenging, yet we have done some amazing things. Have you ever looked at car engines of today? The fuel required to lift a light lunar module off a moon with 1/6th of the gravity of earth is not that massive. Much of the state of the art heating and cooling is done with passive reflection of the suns energy, and passive heat pipes to distribute the energy from the sun side to the shaded side. It then remains the smaller challenge to heat/cool the small volume of 12 FEET (sic).
5) I guess standing on an airplane wing might also be a human safety concern, and that the astronauts were not expected to walk on the lunar module. Wings are strong enough to lift heavy airplanes as well as tolerate the large forward and reverse thrust from jet engines. The lunar module was designed for optimal functionality in harsh environments, not looks. The foil is designed to reflect heat. The stresses on a moon with 1/6th the gravity are not nearly as high as on the earth.
6) Some scattered light would reflect from the moon's surface, to illuminate the pitch black shadows. The photos were not intended to be "primary evidence" to a skeptical public that the mission was real, but to convey useful information about the mission to the public. For three decades, there weren't too many skeptics, and the few skeptics that did exist were kept isolated in the fringe, until the rise of the Internet and Fox. If you change the "contrast" setting on your TV or computer monitor, it doesn't become less real. I guess we have "NO WAY OF KNOWING" if the photos corroborated the LIVE videos, but the reasons for doubting are flimsier than the foil on the lunar module.
7) The Soviets never succeeded in developing the rocket large enough for a manned mission. They tried to build a huge N-1 rocket, and each of the four unmanned tests resulted in an explosion shortly after launch. The N-1 started development almost 4 years after the Saturn 5. The program was cancelled in 1974.
8) If you say so. Spain developed a small folding car, but investors didn't want to build it.
9) You said it requires thick amounts of lead. Radiation IS a huge problem. For short missions to the moon, it is less of a problem. They picked a flight path to avoid the inner belt, and minimize passing through the outer belt.
10) Manned missions are more expensive today. Costs only go down when things can be mass produced, and ecomomies of scale are realized. This hasn't happened yet. In the case of manned missions, the costs have actually increased, due to heightened standards for human safety, from lessons learned during tragic fatal missions. After many missions, and loss of public interest, no one was willing to pay anymore to send men to the moon, seeing no more benefits. Both USA and Europe are interested in a Mars mission, and governments are currently willing to fund programs. The long time frame, and radiation, will be huge challenges, and I'm skeptical we can succeed.
BONUS: Missing tapes might turn up in a warehouse one day. The ability to read them is another challenge. I'd be surprised if nearly 50 years later, they are still capable of being read. The value of the missing tapes seems to be of great importance to moon landing skeptics.
PHOTOS with Stars: So you suggest that artists renderings had stars but fake photos (also artists rendering) didn't have stars, and are fake because the artists rendering didn't match the artists rendering? Ask any astronomer what it takes to take photos of stars. Again, I don't think it was in anyone's mind to take long exposure photographs of stars from the moon, to provide proof to skeptics that might one day unite. I'm still not sure it would be possible in the daylight of the light side of the moon.
11) The lunar module was light, even lighter in 1/6th gravity.
12) Photos do indicate streaks where dust was ejected. Even during thruster shutdown, any ejected dust would have landed far from the module due to no atmospheric turbulence. There would be little particle collision bouncing some dust back.