In an age where anyone can cry "photoshopped" (with or without knowledge of how hard it is to fake content on the kind of physical media used for the missions), a lot of discussion on the landings ends up being a "he said, she said" dead end.

Instead, I think it would be interesting to try a new approach - what we might call Poirot over Holmes - and focus our little gray cells on matters of motivation and opportunity, rather than having the exact same "the flag sways to the wind / the flag is hanging from a horizontal pole" debate that everyone's had before. So, here goes:

Evidence for the landings: They came as a natural step in space development, after sending objects in orbit, animals and people in orbit, and two manned lunar flybys immediately before. However...

Evidence against the landings: Most of those firsts were done by the Soviets, and Americans badly needed a victory to boost their international prestige. Especially with the Vietnam War not going nearly the way they wanted - so they could use a major distraction there as well, and they certainly weren't above trying to fake the whole deal. However...

For: The Soviets had the requisite equipment to triangulate if the Apollo signals came from space or not, and would be the first to cry foul if they could. They didn't. But instead....

For: All the landings happened during the term of Richard Nixon, the go-to "evil president" media bogeyman before Trump, meaning his in-country opponents had every reason to discredit his achievements as president. Which doesn't quite explain why...

Against: The manned landings stopped with the end of Nixon's presidency, and further lunar missions have been token at best. But then again...

For: The manned missions didn't have much practical utility over robotic explorers - which were sent by the Soviets - and the samples taken by the Apollo crews, coupled with ever-advancing spectroscopic analysis, would provide ample scientific data for decades to come. And culturally, while the space program was a cornerstone of Soviet propaganda, Americans quickly lost interest after these first manned missions, making them a costly and risky endeavor with next to no return. Though still...

For: The leftover equipment from the landings is still visible by telescope, including ones that can be rented for private purposes. Meaning that serious skeptics can still pool resources and produce new images of the sites, conclusively proving them to be barren and untouched, if they were. But again, this also hasn't happened.

Overall, we certainly have motive for the crime, but not quite the opportunity - the Soviets could easily spot them for trying, and an exposed faking of the landings during the Cold War, especially the Vietnam years, would mean a massive hit on American prestige that they could not afford. However, there's plenty of motives and opportunities for the local opponents of the Nixon administration to attempt a frame-up, while his subsequent post-resignation demonization would affect all projects during his term, including the space program.