He makes zero sense and is all over the map, switching nonsensically between overcranking and undercranking, and after claiming they didn't have big enough film reels to perform overcranking, downplaying the fact that it could have been undercranked.

So he's claiming they didn't have film reels big enough to run for 90 minutes?  With undercranking, you only need 30 minutes of regular speed video that you then slow down.  He admits that they had undercranking for sports slow motion back then, but then races past it.

Gone with the Wind ran for 221 minutes ... in 1939.
Laurence of Arabia 222 minutes ... 1962.
Ten Commandments 220 minutes ... 1956.
Ben Hur 212 minutes ... 1959.

Kubrick's own 2001 Space Odyssey 139 minutes ... 1968.

And these had much higher video quality than anything seen on the moon videos.

So what is this idiot babbilng about?

So he admits they had slow-motion tech for sports, and you can see here that they had film reels plenty long enough for long movies.  And if these were multiple reels, how hard would it have been to switch the TV feed from one reel to the next really quickly?  Who says that it all had to be on a single reel or "spliced" as he claimed?  Since these were broadcast on TV, they could have just quickly switched the feed from one to the other.

And this is the nail in his coffin, and it's utterly idiotic.  If they couldn't pull off 90 minutes of undercranked video (30 minutes of real video run very slow), then how did they record this stuff live?  Whether it's live or faked, either way, they had to record it for playback.  Oh, and I'm sure that they had the tech back then on the tiny LEM to broadcast a TV signal 240,000 miles.  Suuure.  In an interview, Buzz Aldrin admitted that what people watched on TV was not live but a simulation.  So the interviewer, one of the late night talk show hosts ... can't recall which one ... said, "I remember watching you on TV."  Buzz responded, "No, you didn't.  You were watching a simulation/recreation (couldn't recall his exact words).

For his other stuff, he was cherry-picking pictures.  He claims, "If you have two light sources, you get two shadows." while showing a picture that doesn't have 2 shadows.  Uhm, there are many that DO have the 2 shadows, and those are the ones people are referring to when pointing out the 2 light sources.  Duh.

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
"By the way, I can’t possibly be the only one who is disappointed that we never followed up on that breakthrough folding-vehicle technology. If we had folding Moon buggies back in the early 1970s, then how far behind could folding automobiles have been had we chosen to stay the course?"

"On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.”(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm)

You’re damn right finding a good shield is important!! Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to the Moon."

Here is "American Moon" -- 2.7 GB total. I suggest you download it to your PC and then watch it.
Right-click and select "Save Video As..."

This video is available on youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpuKu3F0BvY

Interestingly, the video doesn't come up as a result if you simply type in American Moon in the youtube search bar.

Like that old song says “The Final Frontier is made in a Hollywood basement”

There is better science fiction than NASA thankfully

They call NASA 
Not a space agency

Rumor has it, Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing in studio... Who knows