You're arguing with subject matter experts in fields of aerospace engineering, telecommunications, geology, photography, computer programming, etc., but somehow your 10 minutes of skimming the internet gives you an advantage over decades of study and practice.
You've grossly mischaracterized my research and analysis, and the veracity of the theses, some of which still stand strong.
No I haven't, because you haven't done any actual research. Oh, sure, you've read stuff, you've watched videos, you may have taken a few steps into some basic modeling, but that's not
research.
You don't confirm a hypothesis by looking for evidence that supports it; you look for evidence that
refutes it. You have to throw rocks at it to see how well it stands up. If your hypothesis is that the landings were faked, then you have to acknowledge and evaluate
all the evidence that supports the landings as genuine and see how well your hypothesis stands up to it. You can't just immediately dismiss it as fabricated in support of some conspiracy -- that's not research, that's crankery.
You have to read the trade studies, the mission reports, the scientific papers generated from both instruments left on the Moon and samples returned to Earth, you have to get into the weeds on thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, rocket propulsion, telecommunications, guidance and control,
all of it. If nothing else the volume of information will quickly show that the level of effort required to fake everything is on par, if not higher than, the level of effort to do it for real.
I have seen these same kinds of arguments against evolution, or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or germ theory, or what have you, for literally
decades -- "I have this one weird observation that disproves
all of xxx."
Or, to boil it down to my particular corner of the universe, "my code looks right, therefore the compiler has to be wrong."
Not how it works. Not how any of it works.
