I will try to respond to your points, just this once. TBH, I have no hopes of reaching the target audience, but here goes.
"I think people almost definitely went into low earth orbit during the Apollo missions. Did anyone ever orbit or land on the moon? I'm not sure."
Apollo 8 was a manned mission that orbited the moon in December 1968, one month before Nixon was inaugurated as president. So was Lyndon Johnson's administration part of the hoax too?
"I think installing a laser reflector is totally possible for a robot, even back then. And same with collecting rocks. I'm also not convinced that the "moon rocks" are from the moon, although they probably are."
I am 1000% certain that designing an auto-pilot capable of landing a spacecraft on the moon and taking off with it to rendezvous back with a lunar orbiter was a technically impossible task back then. Should I remind the state of computerization? Punch cards? A whole room for a computer? The use of human "computers" to make calculations?
It was certainly much cheaper to use experienced test pilots, willing to risk their lives for glory and a thrill and their country. The same applies for all stages of the lunar mission. Humans were simply much better, lighter and cheaper than computers or robots back then. The cost and difficulty of tanks of oxygen and a good vacuum-tight pressure suit were certainly bearable.
"My guess is that humans can't survive beyond low earth orbit."
This is the most preposterous "doubt" of the whole list. Any special reason why they cannot? Need oxygen and protection from vacuum, actually easier than diving the deep oceans.
If you might claim that radiation could kill humans beyond Earth, radiation is a long-term killer. why would the lying administration care about the radiation dangers for a few expendable humans, compared to the risk of someone discovering the purported hoax?
Maybe you might claim that lack of gravity could kill them? Or maybe you don't realize a reason is needed for humans being unable to survive somewhere.
"As for why anyone would want to go:
-everyone makes declarations that they will try to go to the moon.
-it makes sense to build a base there for many reason: science, industry, low-gravity launchpad for space exploration, tourism.
-human desire to explore.
-feminism: a woman should walk on the moon."
All are important reasons, but would you vote for a president that would offer to spend $250B to fulfill one of these goals, taking the money away from fighting poverty, providing education to children, rebuilding the country's infrastructure, or fighting climate change? In reality, once the prestigious goal was achieved, the public pressured to spend the money elsewhere.
In reality, the overarching desire to get to the moon was to
get there first. If you check the history of South Pole expeditions, once Amundsen reached the pole in 1911, and Scott immediately after him, and Shackleton's aborted mission in 1914, there were no south pole surface missions until 1956! I can imagine the south pole "doubters" having a field day in 1952 claiming that Amundsen was a hoax, citing as proof that no one repeated a South Pole visit for over 40 years despite all the advances. Admit it - it's highly suspicious!
Do you seriously believe that the Soviets would admit losing the moon race just because Nixon was good at lying and photoshop?
"-is it not suspicious that despite enormous improvements in all the relevant fields, no other country or company has put a man on the moon?"
No. It was an extremely expensive endeavor, still is. Launch costs beyond earth orbit have not come down that much, with the most major advance (SpaceX's reusable rockets, which you claim are a hoax as well) only achieved in the last few years. Governments are notoriously short on budgets, and the advent of electronics and robotics enable sending unmanned missions at a fraction of the cost.
Companies would not do it without a commercial reason, which there isn't or wasn't until recently (maybe tourism could be a future reason). But the whole private undertaking is only made possible by the existence of crazy and filthy-rich billionaires willing to throw money away at the problem. These billionaires did not exist in the 70s and 80s and even 90s, before economic inequality shot through the roof.
"-is it not suspicious that all the moon landings happened during the Nixon administration?"
No. Apollo 8 happened during Johnson's administration, and the whole program was put together many years before 1969. the people on the program would not have cooperated with a hoax just because the president was changed. A better "doubter/denier" claim would have been that the Johnson administration set up the program as a hoax in the first place. But there's also what Sig wrote - hundreds of thousands of people watched the launches, every capable country tracked them, a lot was televised, the contents of the spacecraft were analyzed, the hoax would have been discovered in near real time. There were so many powerful countries with an interest to uncover such a hoax, are you not suspicious that no rival ever came forward with the accusations?
Of the huge number of people that were part of the program, aren't you suspicious that no one ever came forward and confessed the "hoax"?
"-is it not suspicious the way Niel Armstrong speaks about the moon?"
What, this: "Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."? Seriously, Neil Armstrong knows the truth and is trying to signal the public secretly? No, he is just using a metaphor that to make discoveries you have to break through walls around the scientific truth. And as the main "hero" of the Apollo program, the one who gained the most from the "hoax", why would he of all people hint at its fake-ness?
"-is it not suspicious that NASA lost/taped over the original moon landing tapes?"
No. The "master tapes" were an afterthought, and no one ever looked for them. At some point, such tapes were hard to come by, and someone decided to reuse a heap of tapes, including those from Apollo 11 (only these are missing AFAIK).
Read this.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-original-moon-landing-footage-is-missing-or-was-erased-If-this-is-true-isnt-this-a-gold-mine-for-conspiracy-theorists"I'm not arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon is a disc, or that the american flag flapped in the wind. I'm just saying that the whole thing is very suspicious for many GLARING reasons."
I am not arguing that you are gullible beyond belief. I'm just saying that the whole hoax claim/"doubt" thing is suspicious for many glaring reasons.