YouTube has a bad reputation for this sort of thing simply because the majority of times a YouTube video is presented as evidence it's actually just a load of meaningless drivel that doesn't present any evidence, doesn't support the claims, or both.
Indeed, a lot of it is just a flashy (re-)statement of the claim, not evidence
for the claim. Links purporting to be "proof that UFOs are real" seem to follow that pattern a lot. You get nothing but the standard montage of blurry video and obvious fakes.
A lot of it is 10 minutes of drivel, out of which the poster intends only to refer to 3 seconds buried somewhere in the middle. I think that's the impetus for YouTube's scrub feature. The streaming protocol has advanced to the point where you can instantly seek to the point you want.
What irritates me is "This new video proves we didn't go to the Moon," whereupon I follow the link only to see yet another pirated clip of one of the hoax authors' videos that have been floating around for 10-20 years. Just because you captured it, put your little title slug on it, and posted it to your channel doesn't mean it's new. Yes, I realize that's not really a complaint against YouTube
per se; it's more of a rant against the cyclical nature of conspiracy claims.
YouTube is filtered out of a lot of people's work access, so when people read and post from work it's problematic to tell them the proof is in something they maybe can't see until later.
Even when actually containing useful information, they still have a habit of being poorly constructed and making rather a meal of presenting that information when it could often be easily shown in a couple of paragraphs of text.
This guy not so much. The early part of his video illustrates common errors in photographic interpretation that conspiracists rely on, and his explanation meshes well with the motion-photography he uses to illustrate it. Good use of video, and good production values. The second half is narration with marginally related (but nevertheless skillful) graphic illustration and pull quotes -- a good way to get your point across if you're committed to video as a format, but not the best way to make those points if you get to choose your format.
Overall I think it's a well-made video, certainly well above the bar by YouTube standards.
Where is the part that actually prevents it from being done, rather than just making it a bit more difficult? Bear in mind that, again, we're talking about a claimed conspiracy consisting of hundreds of thousands of people and many billions in funding, so "It would be a bit more difficult and expensive" is not a good argument.
He waffles between the absolutist and relativist point of view. He says at several points that it's impossible, by which I finally gathered he means qualified as "impossible with off-the-shelf technology of the time." And at several other points he says it's just eventually more difficult than actually going to the Moon. The point he makes once, which I think he should have made more forcefully, is the hoax claimant's paradox: you can't simultaneously say NASA lacked the technology to go to the Moon and at the same time say they had ultimate resources for
faking it.
This is the dilemma on whose horns many conspiracists trip up. This ultimately reveals that technology is the red herring in their argument. If NASA lacks ultimate resources to fly to the Moon but possesses ultimate resources to fake it, the question is not of resources but of moral observation. The goal of the Apollo hoax theory is to prove that NASA is
evil. NASA represents the U.S. government, the Establishment, and all that prevents the conspiracist from enjoying greatness, credibility, or whatever may be his contemplation of the Good Life. And in the conspiracist's fantasy construct they have to be seen as evil at all costs.
That's where our filmmaker makes his other salient point: once you attribute omnipotence to the alleged conspirators, you've simply
decided what you want to believe in the face of any evidence to the contrary.
