If you can not see the illogical of not believing events that to fake would have take far far far more resources to attempt to fake then to had just go to the moon I feel sorry for you.
Next if you do not see the insult to the men who did risk their lives to give any credit to those insane theories I also feel sorry for you.
Do you understand the logic of Schrodinger's Cat being tentatively both alive and dead until the moment the outcome is determined?
That is how scientific knowledge is supposed to work in general. You know that you don't have direct positive proof of something, so you tentatively accept multiple possibilities without fully accepting or rejecting any.
So what you are saying about the moon landings being more difficult to fake than to actually achieve may be a reason to believe they were real, but that is not positive proof; so if you are really rigorous from a positivistic standpoint, you have to acknowledge that Occam's Razor (or whatever you call the logic you are applying about the faking being more difficult than doing) is not sufficient to provide positive proof.
In fact, you have to acknowledge that photos can be faked, video can be faked, rockets can be shot up really high and seen in telescopes without necessarily being filled with people and equipment, etc.
All those exercises in alternative hypotheses do not and cannot prove that the moon missions were faked, nor do they even prove they are less likely to be real. All they do is provide a reason that evidence could be faked and thus that all the photos, videos, etc. are not positive proof of anything.
Lacking positive proof doesn't mean you can't believe what you want. E.g. before space missions were sent around the moon, there was no positive proof that the moon wasn't purple on the far side, but it was as improbable to believe that as it was to believe that the moon was made out of cheese. So there is reasoning and estimations based on likelihood and realism, etc. but those are all different than positive proof.
So once you get comfortable with having different standards of proof, you can believe something on one level, yet on another level realize that your belief must be tentative because you don't have positive proof.
Then, because your acceptance is tentative based on a lack of positive proof, you can explore alternative hypotheses without believing those either. In other words, you can theorize about Schrodinger's Cat being both alive and dead at the same time without dismissing either possibility.
What you do is like arguing that the cat is alive because there is air in the box and the cat has only been in there five minutes and the gun isn't loaded or whatever, which are all good reasons, but positive proof doesn't occur until you actually open the box and observe the cat directly.