I've wondered the same thing. Or maybe "lazy eye"? I've asked him but he's always ignored the question.
Your brain maintains a model of the would around you. Two eyes certainly help, but you also do it with just one 'eye' for (non-3D) photos, TV and movies. You judge perspective with your intuitive understanding of geometry, by reference to familiar objects, and (for TV and movies) by how things change when the camera moves. This tells me that even people blind in one eye should still be able to judge visual perspective.
We've discussed this a number of times. It seems to me that there almost has to be something defective in his visual interpretation. I (and others) had a long back-and-forth (I hate to use the term 'debate') about a shadow on one of the LM footpad joints that he insisted was a hole. Sometimes it's very difficult for me to believe he's not joking, like when he takes measurements of a (rough) schematic diagram in a NASA manual, like this one:
and, based on his measurements, insists that the position of the line does not represent a possible orbit.
He just put a video up a few hours ago in which he rehashes some of the same old stuff, along with a few things that someone who has been "studying" the Apollo missions for as long as he has should know better than.*
He claims that there were no unmanned landings before Apollo - evidently the Surveyors never flew, nor Luna 9 or 13.
He claims that NASA took a huge risk in allowing AS-11 to land after there had been a fuel cell anomaly on AS-10, because a fuel cell failure
on the LM during the descent could have "tragically ended" the mission.
And, of course, it was all because JFK was a master political manipulator - just ignore the fact that he didn't even live to see the first manned Gemini flight.
I don't know just what it is, but there's just something very odd there. All just IMHO, of course.
Oh, and vocabulary? He uses "important" to mean 'more' or 'greater'; i.e. the CM had a
more important velocity than the LM (was moving faster).
*I fully expect a visit from the bad grammar imps over that one.