G'day Icarus1, and welcome to the forum.
If I could just add my 2 cents worth...
The thing to take away from the issue of two photos is that context matters.
The two photos you drew our attention to are simply two out of 120-odd photos taken by the Apollo 11 moonwalkers in their 2 hours 15 minutes on the surface of the Moon. Given that all those photos were on a single roll of film, any issues about those photos must also address all the other photos on the roll. After all, you only need to accept that a single photo in the Apollo record is genuine to accept that people have actually walked on the Moon.
The second aspect of context is that the photos are a record of what the astronauts did on the Moon - collecting rocks and placing scientific equipment. In other words, the photos are part of the Apollo scientific record. The process of collecting rocks included photographing them in situ prior to collection, and having scientists photograph them again in the lab once they'd been returned to Earth. To non-scientists like me, photos of rocks are generally uninteresting, but they provide geological context for scientists trying to ascertain the Moon's history. In that sense, faked Apollo photographs would be quickly uncovered by scientists because of the inconsistency between the rocks in the photos and the rocks in their labs.
Finally, in the broader sense, the context of Apollo was the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR. For all the nobility of exploration and the broadening of our scientific knowledge (and sure, that happened), the reality was that Project Apollo was just another weapon in the propaganda war between the two nuclear superpowers. In that sense, Apollo had to be real, because being caught faking it would have been a far worse propaganda disaster than either not getting to the Moon or getting there second. Thanks to their openness about their space program (and also to Soviet agents working in NASA) the Americans made it as easy as possible for the Soviets to verify the reality of the program. The Soviets never questioned the reality of Apollo; they merely pointed out (accurately) how expensive and dangerous it was compared to their unmanned sample retriever missions.
The thing about Project Apollo as an event in history is that all the evidence converges on the same conclusion. No single piece of evidence proves Apollo beyond doubt; instead, everything fits together as a consistent whole. You can see that the spacesuits used by astronauts on Space Shuttle mission spacewalks are based on the Apollo spacesuits; you can examine a genuine Saturn V rocket at Houston and compare it to footage of the Saturn Vs lifting off during Apollo; you can talk to the scientists from around the world (including from countries hostile to the USA) who've examined Apollo rocks and written scientific papers about them. And so on.
Compare that with people who think Apollo was hoaxed. None of them is able to produce a coherent narrative about how Apollo was faked. Ask enough (and usually not many) questions and you find them contradicting themselves. For example, according to one hoax proponent, TV footage recorded when the astronauts were close to the camera was recorded in a vacuum chamber to accurately re-create the effect of dusty particles falling to the ground; but TV footage recorded when the astronauts were distant from the camera was recorded in the desert at night; but there's TV footage showing the astronauts close to the camera then moving away until they're distant, all in a single uninterrupted piece of footage. How was this recorded?
So please take advantage of the opportunities to learn about Apollo. There's a lot of good information in the Internet, even more in books.
