LOL. There are plenty of people with lots of education, and little common sense. These people spend a lot of time getting into extremely detailed analysis and explanation of what they claim to be "anomalies" or other supposed evidence that the Moon landings were all fake.
Just for laughs, I read this entire article: "Apollo 11 and the Slippery Slope Inexplicable 30% reduction in the shadows of Apollo 11 EVA" (https://www.aulis.com/reduction.htm)
I will highlight one line (arguably the only one that matters): "At the same time reviewer B stated that it was his personal opinion that the phenomena identified in the article were due to inaccuracies already present in the basic data used for analysis."
Yeah, this article is a perfect example. They spend a lot of time and ink talking about supposed "anomalies" in the length of the shadows in the photos. But despite all the bloviating (typical of academics), they ignore the most simple, and correct, conclusion: their data (camera positions and angles) are estimates (no one used a tape measure to determine the exact distance of the various cameras from the lander). So instead of accepting the simple explanation (the cameras were not where they assumed, or at the angles they assumed), they spend a lot of time "proving" there are anomalies using their own, incorrect assumptions.
This article goes on to claim that this mathematician's article was not published due to other's "vested interests" (in keeping up the "hoax" of the Moon landings):
Although seemingly bewildering to the general public, even if scientifically minded, Astrovestnik's ultimate refusal to publish is unsurprising, because notwithstanding the journal’s intentions or the qualities of the author (in this case, a well-known mathematician, a professor at a foreign university, a doctor of sciences of impeccable professional competence) all that counts for little when it comes to who and what gets published. The very process of peer review ensures that vested interests can be discreetly protected.
Again, they ignore the earlier point that the assumptions used to claim that there are some sort of anomalies in the shadow lengths are incorrect/inaccurate (they are ASSUMPTIONS, after all). Just because Korobkov is a great mathematician, doesn't change the fact that his assumptions may be incorrect, and that there is no way to know the precise positions and distances of the cameras relative to the lander. And as for vested interests, one could argue that a Russian might have a vested interest (or at least a bias) towards wanting to "prove" that the United States never landed on the Moon, as it was a major psychological and political victory for the arch-rival of his own country, the former USSR.
I am reminded of the old saying: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t.
Or this one: What does PhD stand for? "Piled higher and Deeper."
See: Occam's Razor