Are you not aware that the Apollo astronaut also had a 16mm film camera with them?

Take this footage, for example - the Apollo 11 ascent from the Moon: over ten minutes of an uninterrupted footage from the surface of the Moon to its orbit.

Or this one - footage of the Ascent Module approaching the Command Module: over 14 minutes of an uninterrupted footage, where the AM is initially all but invisible against the surface of the Moon.

How would you even begin to fake something like that?

In comparison, 2001 had short clips with static lunar/Earth backgrounds and models which were usually just photo cutouts being moved around. No, like I said - it doesn't match the fidelity of the Apollo footage at all.

Yes, I'm aware. And none of that was broadcast live. We wouldnt have had access to it unless they came back. Same with the still images. There wouldnt have been a need to fake that footage. My position is we successfully landed and returned our astronauts. But we easily couldve faked a landing for broadcast in case there was a failure during the mission. That would have been a smart and relatively cheap contingency considering the stakes.

Since NASA was under no obligation to bring back any footage, they were under no pressure to fake any - and if they did, they would've already admitted as much, since it wouldn't take away from their achievement.

They were under immense pressure. They had every to fake a landing. In the scenario I am describing they didnt need to return any footage, they just needed the rocket not to explode on the launch pad and if there was a failure at any point they couldve still shown us landing on TV. Even Nixons failure speech says "they will remain on the moon" so it implies that at every least we got there. Both outcomes still delivered a win, one just a little more bittersweet.