Nobody has given any evidence to back up their claims other than following an official narrative.
Incorrect!
But, in any case, what evidence have you ever given that the "official narrative" is incorrect?
There's plenty of evidence to back up claims that nobody went to any so called moon but it's discarded because it's too close to the bone, so it's dismissed out of hand with little to no answer for it.
No there isn't! That so-called evidence is dismissed because it has no basis in fact - some easily, some not so easily.
Like that silly claim that astronauts could not fit through a hatch with their PLSS on or the ridiculous claims about the thermosphere or the Van Allen Belts.
You know, stuff like, how it took a few people to get them into their suits and yet inside a flimsy cramped so called lander they manage to have no issues at all,
A few people in earth's gravity but might it not be easier in the 1/6 gravity of the moon? And they did not remove all of the suits in the LM only the outer pressure jacket most of the time.
And who says that they had "issues at all"? One issue they had was with the lunar dust (it's far more "sticky" than earth dust).
The dust was bad on the longer Apollo 17 mission when the LM arrived back at the Command Module the pair stripped naked and left their suits behind.
not even any issues with having to supposedly go back into the lander then back out onto the so called moon without worrying about pressurisation and depressurisation of the so called lander.
Why would there be issues with pressurisation and depressurisation of the lander? It was designed for that purpose and tested on earth
[1].
Besides the LM was pressurised with pure oxygen at only 4.8 psi.
And that's just a small piece yet a piece that gets washed away without any realistic argument in favour of how it supposedly worked.
No, it does not "just get washed away"! It's just more examples of your not understanding what was going on.
There is voluminous information available on "how it
supposedly worked".
For example a lot of people claim that the LM had walls "about as thick as a coke can" and, guess what?. It did!
How thin were the walls of the Apollo Lunar Lander?
About as thick as a coke can, but it had plenty of ribs and spacers for structural strength, and plenty of lockers and equipment on the inside so you couldn't just stick your foot through it.
Here's the structural stuff.
The "coke can" was just the pressure vessel to hold in 4.8 psi and there was plenty of closely spaced support for that thin skin.
The thin skin tapered in thickness so was only thin it the middle where the stress was least.
[1] And the first LM failed the pressure test on earth when a window shattered - big redesign job.