The original question was "is x reportable?" to which the answer was "x probably didn't happen, and even if it did, no". Then it was edited to an entirely different question ("can I find x on LiveATC?") which should never have happened as it invalidated the existing answer. If anything, it should be asked as a new question.
The question should be reverted to its original form, and judged as such. If the OP wants to know about LiveATC, they should ask a new question. To prevent it from getting closed again, the question could be edited keeping the original question in mind, but be made more specific:
Can a passenger report a go-around due to an apparently forgotten landing gear?
That question is clearly answerable (either "yes, see this and that FAA form" or "no, it is not"), and any supplemental information ("but you were probably wrong in your assessment of the incident") is perfectly acceptable.
As a general point, I think there should be a more clear consensus on how to handle questions based on a possibly false premise. The "opinion based" close vote seems to originate from the fact that it's impossible to tell whether the landing gear was forgotten or not, not that it's opinion based whether there exists a way for passengers to report aviation incidents.