This, too, was asked and answered. Apollo 11 did not have to launch in July 1969. It did not even have to launch in July 1970. People at NASA were already reminding each other that technically 1970 was the last year in the decade. The only reason to launch a landing attempt in 1969 was that it was feasible in 1969. There was no need in the summer of 1969 to be panicking and contemplating fraud against the United States and possible jail terms.
I see
@Ranb has already outlined the testing program. I will add that Apollo 10 also tested powered descent to P66 and lunar orbit rendezvous, which were two of the outstanding unknowns. After that there was literally nothing left to test except for the actual landing, which is what Apollo 11 tested. From the engineering perspective Apollo 12 was the first operational Apollo mission.
Some of the hoax claimants, including Allen, maintained that later Apollo missions succeeded, but that a fake Apollo 11 had to be flown in order to meet Kennedy's deadline under the rubric that it had to be done in 1969. But was Apollo 12 fake? It launched in November 1969. If you had already claimed success according to a fake Apollo 11, why risk discovery by launching another fake mission? Why not rest on your falsified laurels and say you need a year to evaluate the results. If Apollo 12 was real, then how did it get to be so successful after only four more months of work? If a bare-bones Apollo 11 can't have been flown in summer of 1969, how was a full-fledged H-type mission possible just a short time later?
ETA: The other obvious problem was getting the photographic record to match. If you faked only the Apollo 11 imagery, what would you do if the Apollo 12-17 imagery doesn't substantially agree? There are no stars in any of the Apollo photographs, even from the missions that Allen and others concede might have been real. The answer they give to reconcile this is that all the Apollo photography was faked, even if real missions were flown. The only way to ensure consistency between fake photography taken before any real mission and real photography from the real missions is to publish
only fake images. And in fact the hoax claimants try to draw evidence of fakery from all the Apollo missions, not just Apollo 11. This just digs you in deeper. You have to compare the risk to NASA of missing Kennedy's deadline (embarrassment, but recovery) with the risk to NASA of being criminally liable for massive fraud.
