The pictures you posted using artificial lighting look the closest to the Apollo shots.

No, they most certainly do not.

The artificial lighting photo puts the longer shadow on the wrong astronaut in the arrangement where they are collinear. (http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html Fig. 1) Compare with photo #2 above.

The artificial lighting photo exhibits marked shadow divergence from only a 15° lateral separation, whereas no such divergence appears in http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html Fig. 6.

If you had adjusted the lamp more to the bottom of the picture and had made the light lower, i think that you would have had very a similar picture to the Apollo one posted on this page.

If that is your belief then provide your own empirical evidence to substantiate it. Lowering the light will only increase the lengths of the shadows. It will not materially change their angles.

The sunlight picture you posted shows that the shadow lengths of both objects are almost identical and nothing like the vast difference of lengths shown in the Apollo picture.

Photo #11 above is meant to demonstrate http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html Fig. 6, as opposed to David Percy's suggestion which is illustrated in photo #6 above.

Photos #1-3 above are meant to demonstrate http://www.clavius.olrg/shadlen.html Fig. 1, the effect of terrain variation on shadow length, as opposed to David Percy's suggestion which is illustrated in photos #4 and #5 above.

David Percy wishes to argue that both Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 on my site can be explained by the astronauts' position and motion relative to a nearby light source. I have shown conclusively that such a theory will not produce the effects seen in Figs. 1 and 6.

David Percy wishes to argue that such shadows cannot be produced by natural light. I have shown conclusively that such shadows can indeed be produced if the terrain in question is sloped in a particular way.

David Percy naturally argues that the terrain is flat there, and produces evidence which he believes demonstrates its planarity. I have taken Percy's evidence and shown conclusive that it demonstrates, on the contrary, the exact position and nature of the contour which would produce the shadows in Fig. 1.

Further, I can cite evidence from the rest of the 16mm DAC footage, which David Percy chooses not to present, which clearly show Armstrong's shadow bending and changing in length as he carries the television tripod out to its distant location. This effect can only be caused by terrain variation.

But if you think I'm not right, perhaps you could post a picture ...

No, how about you post some evidence now?

I've provided the empirical proof you asked for. I have provided the theory. I have provided example and counter example. You no longer have the luxury of saying this question has not been answered. It's clear you don't even understand what's going on here. First demonstrate that you understand this evidence. Then you may ask for more.