You have already been exposed JayUtah
As...?
(1) they are all perfectly framed...
Except, of course, for the ones that aren't, and aren't commonly reproduced in the editorial literature.
http://www.clavius.org/photoqual.html
when the camera were mounted on the front of the space suits and almost impossible to focus;
I have used an Apollo-modified Hasselblad 500/EL. Have you?
Yes or no.
Of course any competent photographer knows about zone focusing and depth of field. Helpfully, the Zeiss Biogon lenses provided detents for the common focusing zones. I had no problem correctly framing and focusing with that lens, and I was operating at f/5.6 while the Apollo astronauts typically used f-stops in the f/8 to f/16 range.
there are many with shadows in different directions, indicating more than one source of light, when on the Moon, there was only the Sun
This claim was refuted years ago, e.g.,
http://www.clavius.org/analyze.html
I know for a fact that professional photographer Craig Lamson showed you the proper way to analyze shadow vanishing-points in photographs. None of the so-called analysis conducted by self-proclaimed photographic analysts purporting to show inconsistent lighting have been conducted using valid techniques; they are all the product of ad hoc methods invented on the fly by their proponents and easily shown to be based on incorrect assumptions and physical properties, e.g.
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html
some show the Moon Rover with no tracks...
Refuted at length many years ago.
http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html
...indicating that it had been lifted into place using a crane, which left no tracks for its getting there
No, this is just conjecture on your part. You
infer that the rovers were lifted into place using a crane. You have no evidence that this method was employed. You simply invent it as one unproven hypothetical method for why you cannot see rover tracks in some photos.
the background are just as in focus as the foreground, indicating that it was shot using "front screen" projection, as experts have observed.
Which experts, exactly? Name them explicitly. Which photographs, exactly? Cite them by their ASXX-XX-XXXX format reference numbers.
For most examples commonly cited by others, this is just a special case of ignorance regarding depth of field and focusing zones. The ignorance of non-experts is not a valid basis for judgment.
There are excellent sources on all of this. I list some on assassinationscience.
You simply endorse claims made by other non-experts without any indication that you have applied any form of critical thinking toward them, any competent literature search regarding existing refutations, or any attempt on your part to test or replicate them to ascertain whether they are valid. In most cases the claims you endorse were refuted as long as 15 years ago. Simply regurgitating old claims will not do.
[ETA: At the moderators' discretion, I would be happy to have this separated into its own thread if appropriate]
