When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.
But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.
I chose the boundaries to fully encompass the features in question. Yes, it is snipped of context, but only so more than pattern recognition is at play.
You probably could make an argument that it is the same Sea in each, but my point for the first image stands; it does not appear the same. You have a couple of similar features, as we would expect to see on one lit rotating face, but it is compressed as though viewed at an angle.
I must disagree on the third one though. Beyond the color, I can see no similarity of shape, size or detail. I suppose you could argue the triangle at the bottom, but on the left image it blends too well with the right of the image so it's hard to believe it's genuinely a triangle, rather than actively searching for things that could be construed as similar. Beyond that you have details in one missing in the other, and vice versa, and huge differences down the right hand side.
Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.
To tackle this in rows:
Row one. They are both grey ovals, I will give you that, but past that I can't credit much in the way of similarity. You have all the details surrounding it on the left which cannot be seen on the right; while you might argue that's just camera focus, the problem there is that there are other dots, other features that bear a similarity across both (such as the crater you point the arrow at) and yet multiple comparable aspects completely lack an equivalent.
Row two. Focusing on the larger two images, I really cannot credit them as being similar, there are huge discrepancies in shape. In the interests of making references easier, the left-hand image is similar to a whale, water shooting out of its spout, with the tail to the left and head to the right, almost looking head-on at you. I understand the second image is rotated, but the water shooting from the spout is far wider in the second, there is a crater up and left of the tail in the first image that is not present in the second (there's one in a vaguely similar location, but it itself looks too different to be the same). You have a dot in the first image below the crater you point an arrow at that does not appear in the second, as well as a whole slew of craters on the underside of the head where the reverse is true. The angle of the tail too does not seem to line up, though my image editing software doesn't have as clean a rotation tool so I can't be sure.
Row three. The crater pointed out with the red arrow does not exist in the first image. There is a darker spot under the arrowhead that is not present in the third, and all that arrow points to is a faint smudge that frankly could be anything, and lacks the adjacent craters that are in the last, to say nothing of how the overall angle of each Sea shifts.
I'll give you that there are similarities, but as there is only one face of the moon we would expect to see similar features. However they are viewed from different angles, hence the distortions we see above. I cannot credit the claim that all of those images are of the same face from the same angle with all those flaws mentioned above, just to begin with.
I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.
I am in the extreme minority as far as what shape I think the Earth is too. I'm used to it. I have refined my theory of the Earth's shape and how it works many times over before it reached the current point, and I was happy to do so; I had no emotional connection to any tenet, and self-luminescence was the option that made the most sense. There are too many discrepancies for the idea that it is the same place to be scientifically held, in my mind, and I reached that conclusion by trying to disprove it. I did not reach this conclusion by trying to make it work; I have been willing to discard multiple aspects of my model as it developed.
The problem is that, as you say, you use those large grey areas as landmarks, and as a result you assign meaning to smudges and smears and specks, even when some are missing, or unexpectedly present, or the wrong shape or wrong orientation.
Self-luminescence is already far-fetched
Why? I have already gone over the mechanism.
And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.
Apologies if anything I've said to you has come across as disparaging, none of it was intended, and especially not directed at you. (I mostly spent time on the other site so it's refreshing to be able to have a good discussion and this is one of the best I've had, I absolutely do not intend to jeopardize that).