I love this particular bollocks, there were issues in these tests, for instance; On Apollo 10 The LM went into an uncontrolled spin during the Ascent stage. This is why Apollo had this staged approach, to check each phase and as stated by another, even Apollo 11 was the first test landing (although this is contested by some).
If they were faking it, of course they need to insert some bugs/issues. But note, never a fatality, nor any significant issue with "part/design" failure that demanded a delay to the schedule.... Not since 1967, with Apollo 1, when they couldn't even pass a 3-build comms test, or keep the crew alive while doing nothing.
But they finally figured out the trick to fixing their QA/QC problem -- cut out 30% of the steps, and rush it. Because that's how real life works; ask anyone who is doing any form of complex product development.
As Jason pointed out, you're (as usual) arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Things are too perfect to be authentic. Problems are pointed out. Those are just there to make it look real.
But you claim there was no delay to the schedule. Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of unfamiliarity with this topic. The LM was supposed to be tested on Apollo 8 but it wasn't ready. The whole reason Apollo 8 was sent to orbit the moon was to avoid the delay inherent in waiting for the LM or do a redundant mission that didn't actually advance the program. Just because demonstrably intelligent and creative people found a way to work within their situation to avoid the consequences of the delay doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The landing at Fra Mauro was delayed by 9 months. Perhaps you're familiar with Apollo 13? That was made into a movie, so it should be within the boundaries of your research capabilities.
It doesn't matter though, you'll find a way to dismiss this as another confirmation of your absurd unsupported conclusion. Anything that went well is too perfect. Anything that didn't go well was designed to make it look real. Any expert who works for or with NASA, no matter how thin the relationship, is a paid shill and can't be trusted. Anyone who doesn't work for or with NASA isn't professional or close enough to the situation to have any reliable knowledge. Your whole "argument" is just a con. You just don't realize that nobody here is dumb enough to fall for it.
Still waiting on you to demonstrate any looking in to the ISS vs Apollo docking situation. It's embarrassing to have to spoon feed you like this, but here is a little push in the right direction, champ. List the docking procedures for the ISS as you understand them and the docking procedures of the AM as you understand them. Compare and contrast and see if you can spot the difference. If you don't know the procedures, you may need to do a little digging, but this is something that even a lazy google search should be able to provide for you.
