There was sufficient technology in 1969 to fake it in video, but the skill to do it well enough to keep it hidden for more than a couple of decades was lacking. The guy in the video is merely spouting unsupported opinions. I was there doing video in those days, too.
To conflate, then exchange the complexity of an Apollo mission with the effort he would have had to take to stage a fake is the height of arrogance. He's puffing himself up unreasonably.
The guy's assumptions about many of his waxed-poetic complexities have to do with his assumptions of, for example, the necessity of continuous video. Discontinuities abounded, thus there was no such requirement of continuousness that otherwise would have belied a hoax. Dust on the film giving up a hoax? PFFFFFFT!
At least one reel of pre-recorded video was found among the tapes. That was dated when the astroNOTs were actually in low earth orbit (by the evidence of the tape shot out a port hole, even as things get in the way of the porthole (represented to have been filled by camera equipment, as below) when they were--per the necessary schedule--halfway to the moon.
I find that damning, as well as the misrepresentation of what is clearly a small portion of the earth's surface being represented as the blue marble while they're halfway to the moon. The cloud patterns on the earth-portion span--in coarse detail--from one end of the hemisphere to the other. Not plausible.
I found what the guy presented in the youtube thingie had a lot of holes and unnecessary assumptions. I don't think he addressed a particularly broad range of them problems that have been noted by others. He tried baffling with BS through a lot of it.
I have years of experience preparing video for high-end home theater trade shows. But this guy's assumptions seem to be mired in his own past experience's shortcomings... can't do this, would have to do that.. when those musing contain the assumptions of his past experience more than inherent necessities of how things had to have been done.
He doesn't deal well with many clear multiple shadowed photos. He doesn't deal with point light source reflections in deep shadows (that indicated a multiple light-source situation (see post #19).
He doesn't deal with the VA Radiation Belt. He doesn't deal with the single-shot accuracy, behaviors and choices that non-professional photographers (e.g., Armstrong and Aldrin) made throughout their moon experience.
Apollo AstroNOTS have made grossly varying statements about even whether they could see stars. Some denied being able to see any, others talked about all the glorious stars. Certain that fact would not occupy only one or the other polarity of that question, irrespective of the aperture of the lens at any given moment. All of them should have seen stars, but most would know there wouldn't be any on their film. Which way would they lie? Why didn't they talk about the difference of what they (should have been able to see)/saw, versus what they --in all their presumed photographic expertise would know could account for both. But no, we don't hear contemporaneous explanations like that. Instead, when faced with tough questions, we get Aldrin shouting to the camera, "We were passengers!"
There have been many, many anomalies in the "blue marble" (earth pictures), such as continents taking up grossly-different proportions of a hemispheric view.
Also, doctoring of the imagery, copying portions of one piece to another.
Something happened to those $6B of taxpayer dollars that went to the Apollo program, however. I suspect it kept a nice chunk of the Florida economy humming, doing (obviously, by deduction) not much more than make-work.