Hi, HypothesisTesting. Welcome.

I prefer to focus on the evidence moon hoaxers have presented. I have studied this carefully, and conclude that there is as much evidence that USA went to moon as did not.

I don't think you've really grasped the scope of the evidence. Are you saying the arguments of the hoax believers ("HBs") is about equal to:
- the personal testimony of 12 astronauts who walked on the Moon, and a number more who orbited it?
- the personal experience of literally hundreds of thousands of government and contractor personnel who worked on it? Tens of thousands of them could have told you whether a particular system would have worked as stated.
- the hundreds of kilograms of carefully documented, differentiated samples brought back from the Moon, and the experience of thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied them?
- thousands upon thousands of carefully-coordinated high-resolution photographs and hundreds of hours of film and video motion imager?
- the experience of the then-Soviet Union, which tried very hard to do the same thing, and acknowledged the Apollo program's success?
- tens of thousands of scientists and engineers who have used the space environmental data gathered by and in support of Apollo to study space physics and to successfully operate satellites and other space probes?
- the experience of astronomers who are still using the laser retroreflectors hand-placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts?
- years of data on the lunar environment collected by the ALSEP experiments, which had to be hand-fueled and manually set up on the Moon?
- the technical and managerial knowledge gained during Apollo which is standard practice today?
- the hundreds of tons of flight and test hardware still available for public inspection?

For instance, Jack White's photo study seems convincing to me, despite the work I've seen answering his, arguing that he made errors in analysis.

I'm no photo analyst, but when a guy literally can't tell which side of the LM he's looking at, it does not inspire confidence in his ability to analyze Apollo imagery.

I can see the powerful political reasons for a hoax,

And I can see the even more powerful reason not to do it, given its inevitable revelation. How do you expect a hoax not only to fool the best experts of the day across the world, but also be immune to all further scientific progress?

and it wouldn't be hard to pull off,

Please explain why it would be easy to pull off hoaxing the evidence discussed above.

with all the video feed going through NASA.

No. There were tracking stations in other nations as well that cooperated with NASA but were not NASA-owned. That applies even more so to the ALSEP telemetry. Furthermore, other nations and amateur groups tracked Apollo missions.

On the other hand, the astronauts like Aldrin and Mitchell, seem totally sincere and it's hard to believe they would willingly do this.

I've had the pleasure to meet some Apollo astronauts, and work with Apollo engineers and other Apollo-era astronauts. I find the notion they would be willing to go along with a hoax, or unable to perceive it, utterly laughable.

So I'll leave this issue in the maybe? category until a lot more evidence comes out.

It comes back to the question already posed by several people - given the evidence discussed above, what else do you want? If you're going to say "photographs of Apollo artifacts on the Moon", why would you reject the ones we already have, but accept images which will be all-electronic from the start, and pass through many hands prior to being seen by you?

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."