OK, reading between his many coloured lines, he first draws some lines to a point where the sun is, based on shadow direction and the object causing the shadow.
He then throws some equations salad around and draws some different lines. His equation salad is supposed to indicate where the sun might be instead of the perfectly reasonable guess he made at the start. He then does it again. Oh no, he says, the lines now all converge somewhere else but they don't join on to the shadows. His conclusion is not: "my assumptions are wrong" but "there is more than one light source". The lack of multiple shadows doesn't seem to be an issue for him.
He knows the angle to the sun from horizontal, because that's well known, but doesn't seem to be able to get the precise angle to Earth, which is also easily discovered, and instead throws some more equation salad around. Not once does he try the proper approach of "are my assumptions and calculations flawed" as a way of explaining the alleged anomalies his examination finds.
He makes much of the shadow lengths being different, despite the curved visor being at a completely different angle, and despite the fact that once you allow for the visor's curvature the shadow ends in the same place.
One thing he does draw attention to is the thing inside the yellow circle:
My guess it's some sort of lens flare artefact - it's definitely not a real thing.
He does a similar attempt at proving a single (but close) light source for an Apollo 14 image.
