I love threads like these, because then I get to explain laws of physics to people! <squeal!>
Now, the SHADOWS.
This is where conspiracy theorists get themselves confused with other theories.
The conspiracy is NOT that there were multiple shadows. There are no moon pictures with multiple shadows (being cast from the same object). I dare you to find me one.
Rather, the problem is with the length and the darkness of the shadows themselves. Some do not think the shadows are long enough, some do not think the shadows are dark enough, etc etc. The problem with this, of course, is that they forget that the moon is not a flat surface, and also, that the sun is reflecting off all parts of the moon - the lunar surface and the astronaunt's suits.
Crazy people!
Stars - why can't you see stars in the sky? Because it's, well, daylight. The camera simply is flooded out by the light of the sun and so therefore, cannot see stars. You can actually try this with a simple camera (not autoexposure, though, I think), where if you set up a really bright light and take a picture at night, you won't see any stars because there is just too much light.
The C rock - there is a picture of a rock with a C in it - thus, it looks like it's a fake. However, in the original image, this C does not appear. Rather, the C was latter added by some hoaxists or perhaps by NASA's team for clarification. I am not sure WHY the C was added later on, but it does not exists in the original images.
The crosshairs - This is perhaps the only true oddity in any of the moon landing photos, I admit. However, with the right conditions, you can recreate it. Basically, the photography - as pointed out in the stars section - was not that great back then. When you have an object that is reflecting a great deal of light, it will bleed over onto other objects. Thus that "glow" effect. Concerning the crosshairs, the reflected light of the antenna bled over - "glowed" over the crosshair, thus that effect that the crosshair is behind the antenna.
You'd also have to realize that IF this were a fake, they'd still have the crosshairs in the camera and not behind the set. And especially if they manipulated the photo afterwords, why would the hand suddenly slip like that? It makes no sense for that to be fake, at all.
The flag - My favourite part! The flag was not "flapping" in the wind. It was...shaking. You do realise that, even if they hadn't admitted to getting it to shake, it could still be shaking from the moment they put it in, right? Hell, the thing could still be shaking right now, thirty-seven years later. It's physics! What's in motion STAYS in motions! There is NOTHING up there to stop that flag from shaking - no resistance at all. It will keep on moving, until it loses some energy in some fashion (contrary to popular belief, the moon DOES have an atmosphere, but a very very thin one, barely there at all - so the thing will stop shaking eventually).
----
And of course, you have to ask, WHY would they fake a moon landing?
To win the Space Race? The Soviets weren't idiots. They would know immediately if the landing was faked - hell, if forty year-olds sitting in their basements can figure out a supposed hoax, don't you think the top scientists of the times could have known it when they saw it? That's leaving alone satellite survalience that I'm sure they had on us all the time, including close watch on our incomings and outgoings.
The Soviets would know if it was a fake at the time that it happened, and they would have called NASA out on it - IF IT WERE TRUE.
Why else? To distract us from the Vietnam War? The Apollo program was started four years before Vietnam, and was planned completely out at that time, even though they did end up cancelling the last three. So unless NASA has some clairvoyents, once again, a silly thing.
Why else? To make MONEY? Ahahahhaa, there's a laugh. NASA got a lot of money, be sure, but they spent all of it funding the missions - plenty of businesses can assure you of that. Why spend all that money to make all those parts, and then SCOUR those parts so that you can put them in museums later? That's a lot of time, money and effort for relatively no motive. They SPENT that money, that is for sure, and they developed a lot of technologies with it. Nobody made any money off of the Apollo missions. They lost out, a lot.