Firstly, you have demonstrated (to me in any case) the reason for the different-angled shadows is not that there is only one light source (this has been a bad assumption made by HBers) but rather the proximity of the source.
Nope. You're changing horses. The conspiracists say those shadows can "only" be made by having more than one light source. I proved they can't. And most of the reason for setting the light up that way was to demonstrate indirect illumination, not shadow directions.
The articifial studio light you used was a very short distance away...
175-200 feet, depending on which shot you're talking about.
...thus making shadowing very sensitive to where any particular object is in relation to the angle and distance of the light source.
Prove it.
Here's a problem most of the people here on this board can solve. I want
you to solve it in order to prove to me you're not just handwaving.
Let's say I have a flat level piece of ground. Let's say I hammer two poles into the ground straight up, so that 5 feet of each sticks up out of the ground, and they're 20 feet apart. Let's say there's a light 200 feet away along a line perpendicular to the line between the two poles such that each pole casts a shadow 15 feet long.
1. What is my artificial light's elevation angle in this problem?
2. As seen from above, what is the difference in azimuth angle between the shadows cast by two poles?
3. Now assume the same two poles are lit by the sun at the same elevation angle from an azimuth direction perpendicular to the line between them, so that their shadows on this flat, level ground are parallel as seen from above. What is the angular difference between each pole's shadow as cast by the sun and the shadow that was cast by the artificial light? What is the linear distance between the tips of the shadow as cast by the sun and the shadow as cast by the light?
This isn't just make-work. This is the geometrical basis outlined in your rebuttal. I want to make sure you understand your own argument, so you have to answer this.
Therefore your experiment in this matter is invalid and null-and-void because you didn't really recreate the conditions ...
You wish. Do the math to prove our experiment was invalid. Until you do so, I'll assume you're just grasping at straws, as usual. See, I
have done the math, and I'll be happy to do it for you as soon as you admit you can't.
The same applies to all the other things you showed - the reflection of light bouncing off the surface, why the flag is "lit up" on both sides, the quality of taking the photos themselves
Not in the least.
The reflection shows that by using only one, directional light source, indirect lighting can occur by diffuse interreflection. This directly disproves the contention that "fill" lighting must be used.
The flag is being lit by one light source 200 feet away. The fact that you can stand behind it and see it "glow" proves that no fill lighting is required.
What we have proved is that the conspiracy theorists' proposed "tests" for determining whether photographs are real or genuine are based on faulty assumptions and do not really incorporate the way light actually behaves. Whether those tests are made with one artificial light or one natural light is immaterial. The conspiracists have said that it's "obvious" more than one light has been used.
As for the quality of the photographs, you are mistaken again. I was given the modern equivalent of the Apollo camera, a Hasselblad MK70 from which the viewfinder had been removed. I was not given an exposure meter. I was not allowed to measure the distance in any way except to estimate it. I was not allowed to shoot any test frames or practice with the camera in any way other than to examine it ahead of time to familiarize myself with its controls. Yet I was able to take properly exposed, properly framed, properly focused shots. Imagine how much better I could be if I, like the astronauts, were given months to practice.
...in fact, what you've actually proved Jay, is just how it could have all been done artificially since that is exactly what you did yourself.
But that's only because you've changed the argument. The argument we were trying to disprove is that it requires
multiple light sources to accomplish what was done. What we have shown is that the conspiracy theorists do not understand the behavior of light and shadow well enough to be able to look at some candidate photo and determine on that basis whether it was real or fake.
To prove the shadow business at least, you should have set up all the same stuff during the day (as well as? or instead of?) with only the sun as your light source and taken some photos and then we could see how the shadows behaved which would have given a fairer assessment of what you were trying to prove.
I did. Several of the photos appear on my web site.
...since you appear to have well and truly shot yourself in the foot with this one! 
You may gloat after you demostrate that your argument has the mathematical basis you claim.