That leads to a lot of questions to address your idea of conspiracy. First of all, why?
Second, so you see a very vague similarity to a cartoon character in one image from a mission? What about all the other images? Why would they do this? If it is a billion pound industry, why would they risk bringing the whole thing down? Why even pretend to send a mission in the first place? Why do all the other images appear normal?
What about all the other missions which have taken images of other solar system objects and don't see this so called mockery? Why just this one image from one planet?
The only other one I can think of is the famous rabbit on the moon. Is this image on the left a fake too?
The human brain is very good at trying to match shapes, with animals in the clouds being a famous known phenomena. I believe clouds are real, god only knows what you think about them.
Then, lets for a minute assume that space and the dwarf planet pluto is real and we could send a probe there. With a camera at a suitable distance, why could we not see it in plain sight? Surely that is the most logical thing to assume. On earth we are used to seeing things in plain sight, getting to more detail and looking bigger as we get closer. Like above, we can see the moon in plain sight, why not something else if it were closer or we were closer to it?
The probe never give up. Why would it? Why does your phone or car keep going for as long as it does? Because you give it a suitable sized power source. If you are sending a probe into the furthest reaches of the solar system, why not give it a power source that will last, rather than a cheap mobile phone battery? If you are spending all that money, you design it to last. "Oh sorry, we forgot to charge the space probe and just picked up a battery of eBay. Sorry about the rocket and all that".
On earth, what do we do with radio signals to combat natural interference? We increase power, we increase size of the receiving dish and we also increase the resilience in the signal. Wireless networking is a great example, we use it every day, but the signals are all bouncing off all sorts of objects, going through walls etc. So we use a technique called tokenisation. A single byte of data is converted into tokens with a specific binary pattern. These tokens are much larger than the data being sent and with mathematical (I know that hated word again) algorithms, you can detect not only that something has changed, what what has changed and self-correct. So long as the data corruption is not too great it works. Clearly there is a threshold where it stops working but it allows for a lot of data corruption. It does mean over wireless, the actual amount of data transmitted is huge compared to what you think you send (e.g. 100 bytes text is a lot more than 8x100 bits) Why would that not work from deep regions of space? Satellites send signals through the atmosphere all the time. Why would this not work from other space probes?
Imagine an animal in the vacuum of space. Animals have internal pressure equal to the usual external pressure on the surface of the earth and as a result the two balance out and we don't get crushed or burst. In a vacuum that internal pressure would be greater so while a lot of the components of our bodies would do ok, blood cells, lungs, ear drums, sinuses etc, anywhere with air cavities, would expand rapidly and burst. (Though the boiling point of water changes due to pressure. In a low pressure environment this is lower than body temperature, so the inside of your mouth, the linings of your lungs and your eye balls would boil and essentially cook before you really started to worry about the fact your ear drums have just burst and your lungs are exploding through your chest. In the interests of safety, I strongly recommend you don't do this).
So circuit boards. What are they made of? I'm not sure what the ones used in space probes use, but likely some glass fibre based resin. Components are made of silicon and various types of metal, with glass lenses. No air cavities, no moisture. So the question should be, why would a circuit board not survive or function in a vacuum (actually near vacuum)? You claim to have done numerous experiments (details yet to be revealed) with evacuation chambers. Can you provide any evidence of circuit boards not working in a near vacuum? What happens to them? Do they just explode at certain low pressures? Have you repeated this yourself?
Again, a lot of waffle saying "this doesn't match my personal expectations so conspiracy. I have some doubts about how this would work, so rather than think about it, millions are out to trick me and it is all a lie". But when you take the time to just scratch into the detail (yes, another hated word) then actually, why not?
