[epicide]

His point wasn't anything specific about landing on the moon or even the details of the mission. At least not the main point from what I can tell.

He had the opportunity to stand in front of involved decision makers and demonstrate to them that they were not communicating well. At all. And that lack of communication made it seem impossible, to him anyway, that they could even come close to landing on the moon in the planned timeframe without some major changes to how they worked.

[arein3]

He chose poor examples that didn't help his point at all (from my opinion).

I didn't get his point, other than - copy the first landing, you have the manual - and that seems like he misses the point. Maybe I got that impression because all the counter arguments he reasoned were made from the apollo lens, but in the end I didn't hear any solid argument from him, only a "teaching moment" from somebody that doesn't understand the context.

[retrochameleon]

What was really impactful for me was when he showed the comparison of the Apollo mission plan image / diagram and compared it with the current one. He didn't even say much he just silently let the audience look at the two side by side, and it scene speaks for itself.

I also think the fact that no one could answer how many refuelings were needed or planned for the mission warrants attention, as mentioned by other commenters.