I only have experience in Velocity's, but I assume LongEZ's, Cozy's, etc. all land the same way. Relatively flat.
While they all land approximately the same way - not in an incipient front wing stall, as with many small GA conventional aircraft, I don't know that I'd call it flat. Once in ground effect, the stall speed drops a fair amount, so even though (in my plane) my rear CG stall speed is about 61 KIAS, I can (if I work at it) touch down at 63 - 64 KIAS, and still be far enough away from canard stall that I'm not worried about slamming the nose on the ground.
I'm on the ground at least 5kts over the canard stall speed. Try to cut it too close and you could have the canard stall while you're still 5' off the ground. That's a bad place to be stalling the canard.
While all that's true, I think you're disregarding the difference in stall speed when in ground effect, so you're probably substantially more than 5 KIAS above the GE stall speed.
So if the prop doesn't hit the ground on takeoff, it's unlikely to to hit on landing.
So there are a few problems with Raptor in this regard. First of all, due to the problems with his static port position, either on the bottom of the plane or in the cabin, he actually has no clue whatsoever what is actual CAS or TAS are. Since the indicated altitude of the plane increases substantially as he accelerates during the takeoff roll, he not only has no idea what altitude he's at, but he's overestimating his CAS as well - IAS is going to be far greater than CAS because the static pressure is lower than the actual free stream static pressure.
So who knows how fast the airplane is ACTUALLY going. We can see that he doesn't really rotate on takeoff - he just keeps accelerating, and then very slightly changes the AOA with elevator deflection to start the climb. I can guarantee that he's nowhere near canard stall, and nowhere near minimum rotation speed, whatever that might be. Since he refuses to determine his stall speeds, and refuses to explore the low end of the speed range, he actually has no idea what the low speed characteristics of the plane are, nor where it would stall at his current CG, nor how fast (in HIS IAS world) he should be flying on approach or landing. With the distorted views of the GoPro, it's a bit hard to discern exactly what his approach angle might be, but it seems low and it seems as though he's carrying a fair amount of power on the final approach, neither of which is a technique I recommend.
All that said, if he's landing far above speeds that he COULD land at, because prop clearance is insufficient, then that's a design deficiency. And the same with rotation - if he COULD be rotating 10 KIAS slower, but he's worried about hitting the prop, again, that's a design deficiency. Since rotation speed and touchdown speeds should be about the same (as you point out), I agree - if he doesn't hit on takeoff, he won't hit on a SMOOTH landing. But a hard landing, well, I've seen a few canards with props that are 1 - 2" shorter than they started the day out as due to a carrier landing, even with a reasonable attitude.
In any case, he KNOWS when the prop will hit in a smooth landing or takeoff rotations - there's no reason not to determine how the plane operates in the low speed regime to enhance the safety of his landings (and as KB points out), emergency landings as well.
