Think about it. We don't have any information that should lead us to know that the moon landing DID happen.
You mean, like audio and visual recordings, images, physical artifacts, data, testimony of people involved, and first-hand witinesses? We don't have any of that?
And there are videos of things that could only happen in low gravity with no atmosphere, like Armstrong jumping about 5 feet up the ladder, the parabolic arcs of dust the astronauts kicked up, or the hammer/feather drop. As well as independent corroboration from observatories receiving the radio transmissions from the moon. And photographs of the landing sites by later probes from other space agencies.
The moon landings are among the most well docuмented events in the 20th century. The Apollo program was not secret. It was not the Manhattan project.
Expecting to prove a negative is like expecting Trump to prove that he did NOT collude with the Russians
Not exactly analogous. There is no specific story about how Trump might have colluded. If there were, like in any criminal defense he could disprove it by showing a critical part of the story was impossible, eg. an alibi. Kavanaugh did this to the extent that he could.
Now you may think some critical part of the moon landing story is impossible. But all the standard alleged problems have been explained, including the alleged problems with photographs (shadows in different directions can be seen in routine earth-bound photos, plus if there were multiple light sources there would be multiple shadows, Armstrong appears in reflection in Aldrin's visor without a camera because the cameras were mounted to the suits not la commercial handheld, stars don't show up in pictures due to the exposure time), and the alleged radiation problem of the Van Allen belts have also been explained (the path went around them to a great extent, and most of the radiation is alpha/beta particles, which are easy to shield against). Also the flag doesn't actually wave (which can be seen by comparing different pictures of the flag and noting that the wrinkles are identical).
You're welcome to present other alleged problems. I will do my best to explain why they're not problems. I have not seen any convincing arguments against the moon landings.
In the end, that doesn't mean you have to accept the moon landings. But I don't think it's a good thing to accept bad arguments against them. Once the bad arguments are removed, you can accept or not accept - that's up to you.
But, as a Catholic, I think you should reflect that if you can disbelieve the moon landings despite evidence, records and testimony, what does that do to apologetics? How can we get non Catholics to believe the evidence, records and testimony of Christ and the apostles.