There is plenty of evidence that the landing was real. The evidence I like to use comes from outside NASA and even outside USA.
The Soviet Union were, at the time, our adversaries in the space race, and our enemies in the political world (the world was being polarized by the two "super-powers", in order to gain control).
They were ahead of us in ALL aspects of the space race up to that point (first in orbit, first man in space, first woman in space, first soft-landing on the Moon with an unmanned probe, and so on). They also had no reason to make life easy for us (we were building enough weapons of mass destruction to eliminate them ten times over, forcing them to build enough weapons to destroy us ten times over).
They had spies in all aspects of our lives (including in the space program). They had spy ships (disguised as fishing boats) near the launch areas for every rocket launch (Cuba is very close to Florida).
They could use their radio-telescopes to pick up our radio (and TV) communications from space.
When Neil took the "small step for [a] Man", the Moon was over the Pacific Ocean. This meant that the TV signal we got (the slow-scan signal) had to come through a radiotelescope in Australia.
This means that the TV signal was also visible to the Soviet radiotelescopes (they are on the same longitudes, roughly).
After the lunar landing, they congratulated us. Maybe not very loudly, but still.
If they had had any hint that the thing had been faked, they would have told the whole world right away. Given their record in space up to that point, the world would have believed them, not us. The "cover-up" would not have lasted one hour, never mind 40 years.
Even the Soviets knew (and accepted) that the 1969 Moon Landing was real.
The TV image we saw was "manipulated"... But not the way conspirators describe.
The signal that came from the Moon was "SSTV" -- slow scan TV at 10 frames per second, 320 lines per frame.
When it arrived at the radiotelescopes (three were used to produce the images we saw on TV), the signal had to be cleaned up -- it was "noisy" from interference -- and turned into images suitable for North American TV (30 frames per second, 525 lines per frame)**. Contrast and brilliance kept changing and someone had to try and keep up, leading to moments when the image appeared too black, too white or even reversed (including a few "upside-down" seconds near the beginning).
Most of the images we saw on TV were the ones that came in through the Parkes radiotelescope in Australia, where the "manipulation" was done by a radiotelescope technician, not a TV broadcast specialist.
** It was actually even more complicated than that. Because color TV was already in existence, and it required more info to be sent, the North American standard was to send two "half-images" instead of one image at a time, and the rate was actually 29.97 full frames (or 59.94 half-frames) per second, in order to reduce interference.
The "manipulation" done in Australia was being done in a country using a system of 25 frames per second and a different number of lines per frame.
It's a wonder we got anything at all. And it certainly explains why some of it looked... weird.
Of course, the US TV networks would add "simulations" at time to show what was really going on (because the real images were not always that clear).