This behaviour is nothing new. Romulus simply tried to narrow the confines of his argument so tight that he could simply hand wave away any evidence that he deemed inapplicable to what he was trying to argue. It is somewhat analogous to a lawyer in a trial demanding only a "yes" or "no" answer to a question so that the witness cannot add other relevant information that the lawyer doesn't want revealed. Then of course, Romulus throws his toys out of his cot when we redirect or elaborate anyway.
As for his is BS about applying the sceintific method to an historical event like Apollo, well that is just yet another blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof away from the conspiracy theorist. His idea falls over on two basic points...
1. The Oxford English Dictionary (as good a reference as any) defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." How can we "observe" a historical event from the past? How can we "measure" the event. How can we perform experiments on that event?
2. The available evidence that Apollo took place is overwhelming; those who say it didn't happen have the burden to prove it did not happen, i.e. they have to prove that the TV broadcasts, the photographs, the radio transmissions etc, were all faked, and that the public and about half a million people who were involved have been duped.