Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine.
Actually, the most powerful resource you have -- that
anyone has -- is your own brain.
Now it takes a lot of time and effort to learn how to use it. The average person takes several years just to learn how to read and write at a basic level. Most Americans spend 12 years working nearly full time (9 months per year) gaining the minimum knowledge and skill required to function above a menial level in our society.
For a quarter of the American population, 12 years isn't enough; 27% have a BS degree (another 4 years) or higher, and at this point the training tends to become quite specialized.
I'm not saying that you can't make a contribution or even understand a specialized technical field without a formal college degree. Many highly motivated people can become quite skilled in subjects that interest them through independent study, though that risks leaving gaps in your knowledge.
My point is that, no matter how you do it,
it takes significant time and effort to come up to speed in a highly specialized technical field. There's no way around it.
Google can be a
very useful tool, but you still need the necessary background to use it properly. It can only help you find relevant information that already exists. It won't tutor you, though it might find you an existing tutorial.
Nor will Google judge the quality of the information it finds. This is a
critical failing given that most Internet forums have absolutely no quality control and much of what's available is pure crap.
Fortunately, Google now cites papers in many academic and professional journals with established peer review standards. Even so, their authors assume that their readers already possess the background needed to understand the additional knowledge the author wishes to contribute.
But, Rodin, you've made it clear to us that you
don't possess the necessary background to make sense of professional-level publications in the fields of space, planetary and lunar science. Nor do you have the background in aerospace engineering to understand just how Apollo went to the moon. And you won't get it just by Googling for a few keywords that you think may support your predetermined conclusions.
Now I'm
not attacking you for your lack of background. Space science is a highly specialized and arcane field. You're part of an overwhelming majority who have no special training or experience in it.
But you
are out of line for expecting your opinions on factual matters to be given equal weight with those who
are trained (formally or otherwise) in the field. You arrived with a predetermined conclusion and you're selectively looking for whatever bits of 'evidence' you think might support it (whether or not they actually do) while ignoring anything and everything that refutes it. Not only is that highly unscientific, it's intellectually dishonest.
Once again, I don't hold your lack of scientific or engineering background against you. Had you been honestly interested in learning about space science and exploration, any number of qualified people here would be eager to answer your questions. But you came in with an agenda, and it wasn't to learn.
Regarding your "it could be" hypotheses, well, "couldn't it be" that Apollo actually landed 12 men on the moon between 1969 and 1972 just as NASA said they did? While you're evaluating all those "it could be" conspiracy claims, don't you think you should evaluate this hypothesis as well?
Or is it that you simply don't
want to believe that Apollo really happened? That for some reason you
need to believe that Apollo was hoaxed somehow, whether or not it really was?