Whether the "moon rocks" are real or not, showing moon rock is not proof of landing on the moon. Unmanned missions can achieve that also.
Leaving stuff on the moon. Again, that can be done unmanned. Whether it's there or not is not relevant proof of man landing on the moon.
Except when you have live TV footage of them putting it in place exactly where they claimed it is, and when you have images in the photos, 16mm and live TV footage that were not visible in any pre-Apollo images, and when you get data sent back from the equipment they installed as soon as they installed it, and when amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth monitor transmissions from the moon, then it all becomes a little more difficult to dismiss. You can do marvellous things with unmanned probes, but nothing like as much as you can with people.
The only actual "proof" the American government (who was at war with the soviet at the time) gave till today were the photos and the live stream controlled by NASA
NASA don't offer anything as 'proof' - they don't have to answer to people who don't believe them. The offer results. If you want to look at what else they offered as proof, maybe take a look at the many scientific papers resulting from the data and collected by Apollo. I have 8 thick volumes from lunar science conferences, not to mention numerous lunar geology texts, that all analyse NASA's data from Apollo. Photos and other imagery are just scratching the surface.
who despite having higher res video feed from the claimed 130,000 miles approaching lunar orbit and did not allow a direct feed and only provided an outdated 2nd generation lower res black and white projected feed so no details are visible.
There are enough details visible in the TV broadcasts to pick out surface features visible in LRO photographs of the landing site. The live TV broadcasts from cislunar space show images of Earth that can only have been taken on the date and at the time of broadcast. Images from those broadcasts were published in newspapers and books at the time, not years later.
1. Live video feed.... very strong evidences of fakery.
Precisely why it couldn't be faked.
2. Photos.... too many inconsistencies and scientifically incorrect data... no I won't list anything as it's all online if anyone is genuinely interested
Not one person has ever been able to provide any evidence to support this claim. There's a lot of BS online, and all of it can be dismissed very quickly by anyone genuinely interested enough to check for themselves and not swallow hoax crap unquestioningly.
I guess the 2 biggest evidences of never landing on the moon is the Van Allen Belt (also confirmed by NASA weirdly)
Their trajectory avoided the worst of the belts. If you think they would have died as a result of their exposure, please tell as at what point this would have happened and what the dosage would have been. The NASA confirmation you speak of is nothing of the sort - Orion is a completely different space craft going through much more intense radiation zones in some mission profiles. Again, if you're genuinely interested in asking questions you can find this out very easily.
and the leaked video dated where they staged the distance from Earth orbit.
As frenat said, not leaked at all. i have dated original press photos of the broadcast, and a copy of a very good book that details all of the TV coverage by CBS that shows the images of Earth - it was published soon after the mission. Convicted criminal Bart Sibrel basically lies in his video.
All astronauts flipped when approached about this and refused to answer. If anyone can answer these two then I'll believe man landed on the moon otherwise I feel sorry for all.
Again, not true. I'd also flip if someone tricked their way into my house and called me a liar. I'd also flip if someone came to my house while I was away and intimidated my wife, just as violent thug Sibrel did to Armstrong's wife.