You're absolutely right - no data tapes were lost either.

And then getting all those components do the right thing at the right time to stop the rocket from turning into a bomb.

Well, it would have to be designed from scratch, because so many components from the 1960s aren't made any more.

""After that the crew was to separate from the Stage-4 booster and do their magic"... I think that's the only fitting answer on how to explain a tiny rocket propelled spacecraft/LM with ZERO boosters left has enough propulsion (from where?) to go 246,000 additional miles to get to the moon, stay in lunar orbit 21 hours and return back another 248,000 miles to Earth." Just to be clear, the third stage provided the thrust to accelerate the stack out of earth orbit towards the moon. Six minutes of acceleration was sufficient to allow the command and service module (and the lunar module) to coast to the moon in three days. Once in orbit around the moon, the engine in the service module was sufficient to accelerate the command and service module out of lunar orbit and on a path back to the earth. This is because the moon has much less mass than the earth, meaning its gravity is much less, meaning less force is required to achieve the required acceleration. "In fact, even with today's technology this would be considered an impossible feat, requiring multiple booster rockets (12 or more, per Artemis specs) just to go there one-way." Sorry, but you're mistaking two separate issues. The Artemis 1 spacecraft was accelerated towards the moon by the SLS, and used its own engines to both decelerate into lunar orbit and accelerate back out of orbit to return to earth. The "12 or more" rockets you mention are required for landing missions. This is because Artemis is far more ambitious than Apollo. Apollo landed two men on the moon for three days at locations generally near the moon's equator. Artemis will be landing four people for a month near the moon's poles. This requires far more consumables, and additional fuel to reach a remote part of the moon. "I don't understand how seemingly intelligent people like Destin or Luke have enough cognitive dissonance to refuse to except the facts at hand." Which facts do you think are relevant? May I ask whether you have any relevant expertise in aerospace? Consider that aerospace engineers have no problem with the reality of Apollo. Consider also that thousands of scientists have studied the Apollo rocks, and they know those rocks can't be from the earth. "Yes, they made extraordinary progress just to get humans into orbit using outdated rocket technology (which will be useless in SPACE outside an gaseous atmosphere)" Rockets work just fine in the vacuum of space. In fact, rocket engines are more efficient in space than they are in the earth's atmosphere. "but how can you ignore the facts that the entirety of the boosters could barely get you into LEO, which is a stationary orbit unless you were to refuel and load up more boosters there..." Well, no. In order to get into earth orbit, all of the first and second stages were used up, but only about a quarter of the propellant in the third stage. The rest of the propellant in the third stage was used for accelerating the spacecraft out of earth orbit and towards the moon. "which was the original plan NASA had when they were going for REAL. In fact this is the challenge, which they face today... and the reason NOBODY has been able to have a manned flight back to the moon." I'm not aware of any plan for Apollo which involved refueling in-mission. Von Braun's original idea was giant rockets which would go all the way to the moon and all the way back. The earth orbit rendezvous plan involved only involved rendezvous and docking of the components for a manned lunar landing, but not any refueling.

Also shows what can be done when you are not trying to cut corners to save money as well