We have not done decades of cm resolution distance measurements to the moon, and in recent years upgrading to mm resolution distance measurements, in order "to prove the existence (I assume) of the lunar reflectors." Your assumption is wrong. It is the changes in distance over time that are significant. We are able to detect second order tidal distortions on the moon, continental drift rates of the observatory here on earth, the differential effects of the sun's gravity on the moon vs the earth, which is a test of the predictions of General Relativity, and more. It's not a PR stunt. The public hardly knows about it. It's ongoing science. And yes, it depends on the existence of the 5 retroreflectors that have been placed on the moon.

As for the idea that we are manufacturing fake moon rocks, that is a laughable proposition. I gave you the link to the moon sample archive, and with each sample are links to the published studies of that sample. Try reading some of them. Science has progressed through these studies. That doesn't happen with fakes. Your claim that there is little difference between earth and moon rocks betrays the depth of your ignorance on this topic. Do some of the reading I linked to.

I included a composite image with 22 photographs of the Apollo 11 site from various passes of the LRO under different lighting conditions. If you click on any of them you can get the individual image and the full, in context, image it was taken from. The LRO has been mapping the entire moon surface over many years. Give me a motive for NASA doctoring the data with all these variations in lighting for decades of imaging that the public never sees. A couple of individual PR shots on a sound stage sounds (false but) plausible, but decades of detailed image falsification that does not go out to the public comes across as downright delusional.

Also, I included a photograph of the Apollo 11 site from the Indian orbiter in my article. You claim I didn't. You must have missed it.

I didn't go into all the factors that spell reality for me. One more is that (somewhat older) friends of mine in the Riverside Astronomical Society in So. Cal. observed Apollo 11 in its transfer orbit to the moon. You can see satellites, and you can tell the difference in the normal orbital motion of a satellite and one that is not orbiting but in transit to the moon. Sky and Telescope, at the time, reported on other amateur astronomy groups who did the same observations.

This moon hoax business is a combination of ideological bias and character assassination aimed not just at a few people doing a PR stunt but thousands of people who invested their careers in the space program. I knew some of these people and went to school with some of them. They would be in a much better position to smell a rat (if there was one) than some random self appointed blogger who has no clue about the science that has been done and its lasting significance.