I would consider myself an expert on everything related to film cameras so when I learned that
the Apollo astronauts used a modified version of the same Hasselblad medium format camera
I owned that alone was enough to make me doubt the moon landing. 
Those cameras are completely manual, meaning you have to set the correct film speed, shutter speed and aperture combination as well as focus it correctly for a proper exposure. This is all done on individual rings on the Zeiss lens. The astronauts did not have the benefit of a built in or external light meter to properly gauge the correct settings, in what would be an extremely challenging landscape of extreme contrasts. 
That Hasselblad also didn't even have a viewfinder! The bulky camera was mounted to the chest of their spacesuit. 
This means they had no way to focus on the subject or even know what was within the camera frame. 
But lets say they had the technical know how of an Henri Cartier Bresson or Ansel Adams, they still had to manipulate
the camera lens with those huge gloves, then there was the tricky matter of changing out the detachable film back. 
The most ridiculous thing though is that there has never been a film emulsion created that could withstand the temperatures on the moon, -250 to +250 degrees! The film didn't melt it would have been fogged beyond recognition 
by the radiation. Back in the day I had numerous film rolls ruined by the mild by comparison airport x ray machines.
I've looked at the unedited photos from the Apollo mission and it's miraculous the percentage of photos that are in focus and properly exposed. There have been scores of professional photographers who have thought the same thing.

 

Yes, it's sad.  I think the truism is that american society peaked around 2000, and now we're living in the days of decline (in many areas).

Those of us old enough to remember the 50's saw the decline begin in the 60s.