All language subtitles for Truth.Behind.the.Moon.Landing.S01E06.The.Hollywood.Conspiracy.720p.WEBRip.x264-CAFFEiNE.eztv

Keeping it a secret
for 50 years?

That's crazy.

Is there any evidence
to validate the claim.

The apollo 11 moon landing
was staged on a hollywood set?

In pitch-black shadow,

You shouldn't have
any reflective light whatsoever.

That looks totally fake though.

It's fake for sure.

If the moon has no wind,
then why does it look.

Like the american flag
is waving in the nasa footage?

And did nasa enlist the help
of motion-picture icons.

To direct the production?

Did you have any involvement.

In conducting
a fake lunar landing?

Wait. He got a lens from nasa?

Yeah, yeah.

We're going to hollywood,
to see for ourselves.

If it was possible
to fake the moon landing.

It's really dark.

Holy mackerel,
how does anybody know?

A former fbi agent,

A conspiracy theorist
and former aerospace consultant,

And an american astronaut
are investigating

"the truth
behind the moon landing."

Captions by vitac...
www.Vitac.Com.

Captions paid for by
discovery communications.

All right. Here we go.
Here we go.

We've come to a big moment
in this investigation.

We're going to dig into
the most controversial.

And perpetuated
conspiracy theory.

Surrounding
the apollo 11 mission...

The theory that the moon
landing was staged.

Guys, take a look at this.

This is the broadcast
on the very day.

Of the apollo 11 moon landing.

July 20, 1969.

Target load to you.

Apollo 11, this is houston.

You are go at five minutes.

Minus 6.8 on delta-vc.

Roger. We copy your
burn status...

Looking at these crude
animations brings me back.

To watching this on tv
as a young boy.

And thinking to myself,
this is all so fake.

Why aren't we seeing
the real thing?

That looks totally fake though.
It's fake for sure.

Calm down, mike.

The animations were only to show
the lunar orbit and descent.

One they touched down
on the moon,

Buzz aldrin flipped a switch to
turn on the television camera.

Buzz, this is houston.

Radio check, and verify
tv circuit breaker in.

Roger, tv circuit breaker's in.

You got a good picture?

So this is a prime example
on why I started to question.

Whether we went
to the moon in 1969,

And it's not just
the animation parts.

Some of the footage from the
moon is also really problematic.

I've analyzed the hell
out of this footage.

I'm standing directly
in the shadow now.

I probably screened it
over 100 times,

And while the quality
of the material is poor,

There are some clear
oddities in there,

If you know where
to look for them.

There you go.

I know the quality
isn't that great,

But in 2009 nasa found film copy
of "man's first steps on moon".

And it allowed them
to restore the detail.

That was lost in
the tv network broadcast.

I'm looking forward to getting
my eyes on the restored footage.

So we can prove
to these naysayers.

Once and for all that
our brave astronauts.

Did indeed walk
on the surface of the moon.

- Beautiful, beautiful.
- Isn't that something?

If there's anything to be seen,

Anything that gives away
that this is fake,

We should be able to see it
in that restored video.

I've arranged for a screening
for us in washington, d.C.

Okay, let's go.

If, of course,
it's honest, and nasa.

Hasn't messed with all of it.

Here we go again.

It's pretty cool we get to
screen the restored footage.

On a giant 40-by-22-foot
l.E.D. Screen,

Dubbed "the electronic
window on the world."

It's pretty amazing.
Look how big that screen is.

With over 2 million
individual pixels.

Delivering high-fidelity images,

This seems like the best
possible place.

To analyze this material.

So this is nasa's
restored version.

Of the original
broadcast transmission.

They say it's the most
pristine version.

That they have of the man's
first steps on the moon.

I watched it on television.

This is an order of magnitude
better than that.

Now here comes buzz
down the ladder, and th...

See, this is one of the parts
where there's people.

That question whether this
footage was actually shot.

In a studio or is actually
on the moon,

Because you're supposed
to be in the shadow.

It should be absolutely black.

Yet, from the camera,
I see this filled-in light,

Which really probably
shouldn't be there.

And I don't know what
the explanation is for that.

And a lot of people
have questions about it.

Now what filled-in light
are you talking about?

Well, aldrin right there,
he's illuminated.

You can his suit, his plss.

You can see his boots,
his helmet.

And you know,
according to the arguments,

In pitch-black shadow.

You shouldn't have
any reflective light whatsoever.

On the moon, there's only
one light source,

And that's the sun, which, as
you can see in the footage,

Was on the complete opposite
side of the lunar module.

Every photographer will tell you
if you point a camera.

At a subject in complete shadow
with a bright light behind him,

Your lens will struggle
to pick up much detail.

In fact, that's how
photographers are able.

To achieve
the silhouette effect.

Yet, in this restored footage,
we can clearly see buzz.

Coming down
the ladder illuminated.

The argument is that
a fill light.

Or perhaps even a reflector
of some kind.

Was used to bounce light on the
subject in a staged environment.

So you're saying...
Where's the light coming from?

He should actually be
completely pitch black.

I think it's a question
we have to answer.

I don't care what mike says...
Astronauts wouldn't lie.

John young walked on the moon.

He told me he walked
on the moon.

He's an honorable person.
He doesn't lie.

And I'm gonna follow along with
this scientific investigation

'cause we want to prove
that this happened, but...

Sometimes, I just feel
this is not cool.

And I hear you, leland,
but the truth is, you know,

You can't shy away
from questions.

People don't remember
john young, you know,

Saluting the flag.
I understand that.

Okay, here we go. A big one.

Off the ground. One more.

But think about it
from the other side.

And the people that gave this
sacrifice and lost their lives.

We owe it to them to try
to answer these questions.

Definitely.

I can't believe I'm saying this,
but I agree with mike here.

Let's allow the science
to speak for itself.

That's what we're here to do.

Could this have been produced
in hollywood.

In 1969 with the special effects.

That a director had
at his hands at that time?

And can we go ahead
and try to investigate to see.

If this footage was produced
on some hollywood set?

Well, let's try to recreate it.

That'd be a great test.

- Beautiful view.
- Ain't that something?

Magnificent sight out here.

There's only one
surefire way to know.

If the moon landing
could be faked...

See if we can do it ourselves.

So I'm headed west to hollywood,

Where we'll be recreating
the apollo 11.

Moon landing in a studio,

With the help of
a small army of builders,

Lighting technicians,
and engineers.

We are way out of our
comfort zone here,

So we'll need the help
of some cinema masters,

Some of whom conspiracy
theorists claim.

Had intimate ties to nasa.

And while the crew is off
building out the set,

I'll be lining up interviews.

With industry movers
and shakers,

To find out exactly what it
takes to fake a moon landing.

While chad is off
pulling together.

This big recreation shoot
in l.A.,

Leland invited me to meet up.

With one of his former
nasa colleagues.

So we can take an independent
look at some footage.

For signs it was filmed on earth
instead of the moon.

Hey, mike, it's so good
to have you here.

Massimino. Mike massimino.

Leland, it's my pleasure
to be here.

It's always good to see you.

Mike massimino is a great guy.

And a very accomplished
astronaut.

Mike has logged more than
570 hours in space,

Including four spacewalks.

And he's one of the few people.

To have traveled to and repaired
the hubble space telescope.

And this is my buddy,
colleague, mike.

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you.
I think, anyway.

Well, we'll see.

Even though mike's a nasa guy
and will probably toe the line,

I'm open to hearing
what he has to say,

Since the guy also has a phd
in mechanical engineering.

From m.I.T.

But I wonder if he'll be
able to explain.

Some of the other things
going on in the footage,

Because there's more than just
this strange lighting stuff.

It's great to get some
astronauts in the room together,

But it's really great
to have you here to help us.

One of the things that, mike,
we would like for you.

To help us with
is this conspiracy theory.

About planting the flag
on the moon.

And then it waving somehow.
Yeah.

'Cause there's no wind
on the moon and no atmosphere.

Basically, what's going on is,

People are looking
at the footage.

And they're seeing
the flag moving around.

Some of the apollo 11
and apollo 15,

You look at the flag,
it's kind of crinkled,

And it does look like maybe
it's kind of waving in the wind,

So we're trying to figure out
what's really going on here.

Let's see if we can explain it.

Here we go.

Good luck getting up
that ladder.

Could we have faked the moon
landing in a studio?

Sure. We did it.

We recreated the lunar landing.

So what we need is, we need
experts like you to come.

And give us a straight
answer on this stuff.

I'm here with leland
and mike massimino,

Hoping these two
former astronauts.

Can help answer this question...

If the moon has no air,
no atmosphere, and no wind,

Then why does it look
like the american flag.

Is waving in the nasa footage?

So the waving comes from their
handling of the flag itself.

As you see,
they're moving it around.

They're shaking the flag.

There's no air on the moon,
there's no atmosphere,

So even things
that we have here on earth,

The air we have here on earth.

Will slow us down
a little bit, right?

In air, when we're flying
an airplane,

Or we're even running
through the air,

We have to fight against
the air that's there.

I know what mike's
talking about here.

It's a physics term called
"drag,".

Also known as air resistance.

I mean, this goes all the way
back to galileo.

Basically, galileo
concluded that.

In the absence
of air resistance,

Gravity causes all objects
to fall at the same rate.

I mean, nasa even tested
this theory.

In 1971 allegedly on the moon,

When they had astronaut
david scott conduct.

His now-famous
hammer-versus-feather drop.

Here with my left hand,
I have a... a feather.

In my right hand, a hammer.

And I'll drop the two
of them here,

And hopefully they'll hit
the ground at the same time.

How about that?
This is science, right?

This is science.

On the moon,
or when we get in space,

Like when you and I got
a chance to work...

When you're outside, you don't
encounter any of that atmosphere.

And there's no drag
or no viscosity.

And it allows for free movement,

And things will oscillate,
move around, shake, vibrate more.

Because the air is not there
to slow them down.

But what about the movement when
they're not touching the flag?

As they're messing around
with this thing,

They're shaking it and they're
putting an input into it...

And it's vibrating it.

So that's what
they're doing here.

And if you did that on earth,
it would not vibrate as much.

Because the air actually,
it'll slow it down a little bit.

But there's no air to slow it
down on the moon,

So it'll vibrate more rapidly
and for a longer time.

Than it would on earth.

And now, what about
the crinkling in the flag?

I mean, it does look crinkled
in some of the missions.

It looks like it's kinda
blowing in the wind.

And people look at that
and they say,

"well, it must be
shot on earth somewhere.

Where there's wind
and atmosphere."

I can see why they would say
that as well.

And I think that's just 'cause
of the way the flag was packed.

As, you know, leland and I know,

They pack everything
really well...

Your clothing...

Everything get's folded up into
the smallest possible space.

And so, I'm sure
that's what they did...

You can never get it back
into that space.

Yeah. Once you open something,
you're wearing it.

Exactly.

You're not gonna get it back
in the drawer.

The flag needed to be easily
accessible to the astronauts,

So nasa mounted it to the
exterior of the lunar module,

Just to the left of the ladder.

Now, that area would have
experienced temperatures.

Of up to 2,000 degrees
fahrenheit,

So nasa packaged it tightly.

Into a protective
heat-resistant shroud.

But what happened
on apollo 11...

You saw the way they had trouble
getting it in the ground.

And also, that pole that holds
up the flag at the top.

It kinda expands out.

Yeah, it was an expanding pole,
kinda like a telescope,

And I don't think
they got it out all the way,

And so that's why there was
that kind of kink in there.

That makes it look like there's
a bulge in the american flag.

So that horizontal pole
got jammed.

Basically as they were
trying to extend it.

Yeah. Very squashed.

I think I concur that there's
no evidence presented here.

By the flag stuff that indicates
that it was shot.

Anywhere but the lunar surface.

I mean, it all seems
to support that.

Good job. Yeah, man.

Good job, man. Good questions.

Thanks, mike.

It's time to catch up with chad.

For the next phase
of this investigation.

So we're here to investigate.

One of the last
conspiracy theorist arguments.

That we never made it
to the moon,

And it was a hollywood
production.

Shot on some soundstage,
broadcast throughout the world.

That's one of the most
outlandish things.

That I can think of,
because think about.

Just the number of people
you would need to pull that off.

And just think about keeping it
secret for 50 years.

That's crazy.

Well, I found a director
who actually did a movie.

About a government conspiracy
to fake a space mission,

And I think we need to see
how complicated it would be.

To actually
pull that off for real.

His name's peter hyams,
and we're gonna go talk to him.

Let's go meet him.

First stop... peter hyams,

Who directed the 1978 sci-fi
thriller "capricorn one."

Even though his movie
is about mars,

Many point to this film as a
message about the moon landing.

We want to know where the idea
for such a film came from.

Hey, peter. Chad jenkins.

Nice to meet you.
Pleasure to meet you.

Hi. Leland melvin.

Nice to meet you.
Leland, how are you?

Thanks a lot for meeting
with us.

It's my pleasure.

So we are on the hunt
for the truth.

Regarding some of
the conspiracy theories.

That say we never
landed on the moon.

Wow.
Probably the biggest conspiracy.

Is that the original
landing on the moon.

Of the apollo 11 mission
didn't take place.

And you know,
when you made "capricorn one,".

That was a groundbreaking film.

That had a government conspiracy
about the space mission.

"Capricorn one"
is about an attempt.

By the united states government
to fake a space shot,

And how things go wrong and how
they ultimately get caught.

How did you come up
with that idea?

I just remembered during
the apollo missions...

There they did this
simulation of what was going on.

Watching this and going,
"holy mackerel,

"this is a one-camera story.

Wait a second.
How does anybody know?"

It always stuck with me.

The concept that because
something is on television.

Doesn't mean it's true.

How did nasa feel about
the plot of "capricorn one"?

Nasa came and visited.

Because we had photographs from
the probe that went to mars.

We knew exactly
what it looked like.

We had very, very detailed,

Very high-resolution
photographs from nasa.

So we did it... we recreated
the martian surface,

And then we built this lunar
lander exactly the way it is.

And put it on the surface.

We had the most accurate
lunar ascent.

And descent module that existed.

It's suspicious that nasa
was sharing their plans.

With a hollywood director.

It begs the question, just how
intimate of a relationship.

Did nasa have with
the film industry?

It was a correct
to the quarter of an inch.

And they gave us the plans.

Of course nasa gave peter all
their information for his film.

They've always been
completely transparent.

Why? Because they have
nothing to hide.

Could we have faked the moon
landing in a studio back then?

Sure. You could go on a stage.

And make that look
like the moon.

Stanley kubrick did some pretty
remarkable things in 1968.

Stanley kubrick?

That's interesting peter should
mention his name.

Because most apollo 11 skeptics
believe it's kubrick.

Who nasa paid to help them
stage the moon landing.

The theory goes that nasa
was so impressed.

By kubrick's accuracy
in his film.

A space odyssey"
that they asked him to come up.

With the ultimate
piece of movie magic.

Probably one of the biggest
claims out there is that.

Kubrick was behind faking the
broadcast of the moon landing.

And you know, you worked
directly with him.

Yes, I did.

What do you think about those
who say he had involvement.

In faking the apollo 11 landing?

Leland and I are meeting up
with filmmaker peter hyams.

To learn if it was possible
for nasa.

To stage the apollo 11
moon landing.

With the help
of one of hollywood's.

Most imaginative directors.

Probably one of the biggest
claims out there is that.

Kubrick was behind faking the
broadcast of the moon landing.

What do you think about those
who say he had involvement.

In faking the apollo 11 landing?

Well, I mean, certainly you
could fake that image,

Except you couldn't
fake the other images.

You couldn't fake the still
images that they had,

Really complex things,
of the earth.

But they could have
landed the desert, right?

You know, with all of
the telemetry.

That was trained on the
spacecraft from other countries,

Especially the soviet union,
as we tracked theirs...

They'd be delighted in exposing
the fact that we couldn't do it,

So I...

I am not somebody who believes.

That the government conspired
to fake a space shot.

Okay.

I think it's absolute nonsense.

I worked with nasa.

It's actually stupid
to think that america.

Would want
stanley kubrick to do it.

It's to not know
who stanley kubrick was.

It's to not know
who john kennedy was.

It's not to know
what america was.

And what the people of nasa
were because of john kennedy.

It was john kennedy
who said we're gonna do it.

He said we're not gonna
do it because it's easy,

We're gonna do it
because it's hard.

Peter seems like a smart guy,

And I'm happy he feels
exactly as I do...

That this whole alleged scheme
of hollywood trickery.

Is just ludicrous.

We really appreciate
you letting us come here.

And spend a little time with you
and getting to know you.

It was my pleasure. Thank you.

It was a pleasure to meet you.
Thank you, peter.

Thank you.

Before leland and I
head to our next interview,

We wanted to check in
on the progress.

Of our big recreation shoot.

Hey, chad.
Let's go check it out.

All right.

- Hey, art. How's it going?
- How you guys doing?

- Hey, man. Good to see you.
- You too.

Art wilinski and his team
are putting the final touches.

On an incredible prop
for our experiment,

Which will take up
a large portion.

Of the 38-by-28-foot studio.

It's pretty impressive,
'cause this thing can actually.

Land and launch
and everything, right?

Yeah, it does everything, man.

It's just really impressive.
Full nine yards.

Now are we allowed to walk
all the way up on that plank?

- Or just the ladder?
- You are. You are.

- Let's go.
- Nice.

Now you've got
the buzz cut though.

- But, art, you did a good job.
- Thank you very much.

While the team is
finishing up at the studio,

Our fact-finding mission
continues.

Next up, we're gonna
talk to someone.

Who was part of
stanley kubrick's inner circle.

Leon vitali was kubrick's
right-hand man.

For more than 20 years.

Vitali starred in kubrick's film
"barry lyndon,".

Served as his
personal assistant,

And after kubrick's passing,

Helped supervise the restoration
of his iconic films.

- Thank you so much.
- Thanks for meeting with us.

You're so welcome,
you're so welcome, yeah.

If anybody could help us
determine.

If there's a connection
between nasa.

And kubrick, it's leon vitali.

So we're on the hunt for the
answers of what really happened.

With the moon landing
back in July of 1969.

Right.

Do you remember
watching the moon landing?

- I do, I do.
- How'd that make you feel?

My god. I love space
and the idea of space.

If I could have signed up there
and then to say I want to be,

You know, an astronaut,
and there was that possibility,

I would have done it
in a heartbeat.

Everyone was so awestruck.

Absolutely so awestruck.

One of the conspiracy claims
that has the most attention.

Is that stanley kubrick
helped fake the broadcast.

- Right.
- What kind of filmmaker was he,

And what was he like
to work with?

Well, he was very demanding,
and he was...

Meticulous detail
was very, very important.

Leon, you talked about
how meticulous stanley was.

Could you give me
an example of what...

You know, how meticulous he was
in maybe one of his movies?

Yeah, I mean, in "barry lyndon,".

He used a lens, actually...

The only other one
being the one that nasa used.

You know, the 0.7 lens.

And they used it,
sent it up to the moon.

Yeah, and, um, so he could
shoot in candlelight,

Just pure candlelight.

But wait, he got a lens
from nasa?

Yeah, yeah.

Nasa provided a hollywood
director with a lens.

Is an incredible revelation.

I've looked into it, and this
was an extremely rare lens.

Made by carl zeiss.

Only ten of these
were ever produced.

Nasa had six.

They gave three to kubrick,
and zeiss kept the last one.

So kubrick was given
unprecedented access.

The question many ask is why?

And do you know what time frame.

He would have gotten that
from nasa?

He would have... I think
he got that around.

About '66, '67.

Did he ever talk about nasa
assisting him at all on "2001"?

He had some people who worked
at nasa work on the film.

And what exactly did they do?

They would design...
People, ideas, you know.

It was the accuracy.

That was the most
important thing.

Of course nasa wanted
kubrick to help them.

When they saw what he was doing
during the production.

A space odyssey...

They realized his work
was head and shoulders.

Above the sci-fi films
of his era.

Clearly, they had
found their guy.

Some people say that it took
place on a soundstage,

And it was faked.

Because I was the key moon guy.
Right.

I knew where the stages were.

Hey. What's up, mike?

Hey. How was hollywood?

I got to say, our trip
to hollywood was eye-opening.

I'm almost afraid of mike's
reaction.

Once we tell him
about our findings.

Get this.

We were at an interview...
Leon vitali,

Stanley kubrick's personal
assistant for decades.

Yeah, vitali told us how he
was such a perfectionist,

And he created some of the most
incredible space effects.

Of any movie of his time.

- The classic...
- "A space odyssey."

So wait a minute, am I hearing.

That you might be coming around
on this whole kubrick thing?

Here we go. Here we go.

That he might have
had the goods...

Here we go.
To actually be involved.

With hoaxing the moon landing?
Help me here.

Help me.
Is that what I'm hearing?

Not yet, but vitali did drop
an important clue.

He mentioned that nasa,
back in the 1960s,

Provided kubrick with
a super-fast lens.

Capable of filming
in candlelight.

This so-called "nasa lens"
was a carl zeiss planar

50 millimeter lens
with an f number of 0.7.

The smaller the f number,

The larger the aperture
or opening,

Which means the more light
can enter the lens,

Hence the term "fast."

Nasa used this lens
to gather images.

From the dark side of the moon.

Now we have a direct connection
between nasa and kubrick.

Yeah, but that's still a long
way from direct evidence.

That we faked the moon
landing on a hollywood set.

Okay, so what's next?

Well, we need to solve
this mystery.

I mean, kubrick died in '99,
so we can't ask him.

But I've located the ultimate
source on kubrick...

Douglas trumbull.

Douglas trumbull was the special
effects supervisor.

For stanley kubrick
on "2001: A space odyssey,".

Which won an oscar
for best visual effects in 1969.

If anyone would know about
the cinematic trickery.

Needed to pull off a staged moon
landing, it would be trumbull.

I'm heading out to meet him
and interview him.

Okay. Good luck.

Douglas trumbull is a pioneer
in the visual effects industry.

Aside from his work on "2001,".

Trumbull supervised the effects
for some of my favorite movies,

Such as "close encounters of the
third kind" and "blade runner."

I mean, the guy's a legend.

- Doug.
- Welcome.

- How are you?
- Good. Good to see you.

Thanks for having me here.
Welcome to the farm.

I feel like everything has been
pointing to this.

Sit-down with douglas trumbull,

A master of cinematic
visual effects.

This investigation now
is as close.

As it's going to get to someone
who actually had the skills.

To recreate a moon landing
for nasa.

The special effects genius
that you are.

And the illusions that you make,

It's tricking the mind
for the audience oftentimes.

So roughly I think 1964 to 1968.

Is when "2001" was being
put together...

Yeah. And finally went to film.

The process of doing
these shots for "2001".

Was kind of a meticulous,
creative art form.

That we worked out.

We were just learning,
and we were just doing it.

For the first time.

But aesthetically,

We were pretty close to the mark
on what would look real.

And that's why "2001"
survives today, 50 years later.

It still looks pretty good,
you know?

Right.

How we did the lunar landscapes
for "2001"...

I built a very large model of
the lunar surface out of clay,

And so I realized I could go up
into the ceiling of the stage,

You know, 40 feet up
and drop pebbles.

And big droplets of water
onto the model of clay,

And it would make instantaneous
thousands of craters.

Right, it was mimicking
that exact thing.

It was mimicking the pummeling
of the lunar surface,

And that looked great.

The interesting thing
about douglas trumbull.

Is he found a way to visualize
and reproduce the lunar surface.

Before humans even set a single
foot on the moon in 1969.

It's just way too convenient
that the fictional world.

He helped create
for a movie in 1968.

Then became reality
just a year later.

1969... we land on the moon
with the apollo 11 mission.

One giant leap for mankind.

Some people say that it took
place on a sound stage,

And it was faked, and they say,

"okay, did we have
the technology at that time."

To construct a model.

"To make it look like we did land
on the moon in a stage?"

Eagle, houston.

Houston, we see you
on the steerable. Over.

I think we were really close.
Okay.

So I think that that notion
that I could...

I can understand how
that notion would come up.

Right.

Because we did such a,
I think, really good job.

Phenomenal job.

And so, I would say,
"okay, I can understand.

Why you would believe
we could pull it off."

Some people say that
stanley kubrick helped nasa.

In faking that.

What do you say to those people,

And do you think
that stanley kubrick.

Assisted nasa in that project?

There's no basis in fact
for any of that.

If it had been,
I would have been there.

Because I was the key moon guy.

Right.

And I knew
where the stages were.

There wasn't anybody else
around that would have done it.

And stanley wasn't sneaking
off set during "2001" to...

No, I don't think so. I mean,

Certainly I had no knowledge
of anything like that.

I have to ask this question
then.

Because you were the special
effects genius of the time,

That, as you stated
in your own words,

Would have had to be put on
that project to conduct it,

Did you have any involvement.

In conducting
a fake lunar landing?

You know, I'm pretty excited
to think about...

I never did a spacewalk
on my two missions,

Sts-122 and 129,

But now I'm gonna get a
spacewalk on the moon, you know.

There's also another source
of light.

It's coming from...

We caught up with
douglas trumbull,

Who worked as
a special effects supervisor.

On stanley kubrick's masterpiece
"2001: A space odyssey,".

And we put him in the hot seat.

I have to ask this question
then.

Did you have any involvement.

In conducting
a fake lunar landing?

No. Sorry. I'm sor...

I don't want to blow
your balloon.

No.

But there's another
interesting story for me.

About the lunar landing
and apollo 11.

Which was that, because of my
history of working on the movie,

I was hired by cbs news to work.

On their coverage
of the apollo landing.

No kidding? Yeah.

Very few people know
about this one.

Okay. I mean, they said,

"we want to be able
to show our audience.

During the apollo 11 landing."
right.

And I came up with an idea
which I pitched to cbs news.

I said, "let's project images
of the apollo manual."

Onto a screen and put them
in color with gels."

This all came from my read-outs
for hal on "2001."

I said, "we can do this." yeah.

And I made this crazy
kind of manually.

Controlled projection system.

I had nine 16-millimeter
projectors.

All projecting simultaneously
onto one rear-projection screen.

On the set directly
below walter cronkite.

Wow. And nasa gave you
that access?

Yeah.

Once again, we have an example
of a motion picture icon.

Collaborating directly with nasa
on a production,

And in this case, the production
is to mimic the actual.

Moon landing for a tv audience.

So I can certainly understand.

Why those in the conspiracy
community would say,

"where there's smoke,
there's fire."

Why do you think people today.

Don't believe we landed
on the moon?

It's so mind-bogglingly
complicated.

There's reason to be
skeptical about it.

Right.

Thousands of great
engineers and minds.

Put their heads together
and made it work.

Right.

And incredible bravery
on the part of those astronauts.

To do that and to risk
their lives...

Yeah... To pull that off.

And there's no question
that they were there.

And they've... they've been back
to the apollo landing site.

They know what it looks like.

That stuff is still there.

It's a sacred place
because it actually did happen.

That stuff is really there,
and we took it there.

I just think it's insulting
and diminishes the hard work.

That so many people did
to actually do the real thing.

I appreciate you taking the time
for this interview.

And for closing
a very open question.

That leads to a lot of people
speculating that it was faked.

Because of
the technological advances.

That you brought to film
in "2001".

And your teaming
with stanley kubrick.

I think it does open the door.

To that skepticism
that's out there,

But I appreciate you
closing the tab.

And saying, "no, we, in fact,
landed on the moon",

"And it was not faked." correct.

So I appreciate you
taking the time.

To be as explicit as you were.

Thank you. My pleasure.

- Yeah.
- It's good to be asked.

Yeah, absolutely.

For the past week,
while we were off.

Investigating leads on hollywood
insiders with nasa ties,

Our team of builders
has been working to help conduct.

Our most complex experiment yet.

And it's finally
all come together.

No more talk.
It's time for action.

We finally get to see
for ourselves if it was possible.

To stage the apollo 11
moon landing on a set.

- Okay.
- Let's do it.

The team did a great job.

They even built us a 400-pound
full-scale replica.

Of the apollo 11 lunar lander.

I mean, how cool is that?

- Hey, art.
- Hey.

- How are you doing?
- Art, how are you doing?

Pleasure.

I think we're trying to get
right at 11 degrees,

Which is where the sun was
when they landed.

Helping us to ensure that
the lighting conditions.

Are 100-perfect accurate
is peter schultz,

An expert on lunar geology who's
been studying the moon's surface.

For over 40 years.

Here are the stills
that neil armstrong,

Who was already on the moon
taking the shots.

Of buzz aldrin coming down
the ladder of the lunar lander.

The shadow is pitch black,
and yet here we are in shadow,

And you can very plainly
see the astronaut...

It's that contrast
that makes people believe.

That this is possibly
shot on a set.

Somewhere with multiple
light sources.

I mean, it's even more apparent
in the still imagery.

Buzz is damn near glowing
in the photograph.

The conspiracy community thinks
this is fishy,

And I can't say I blame them.

So I guess that's
the question...

Is there enough light
kicked up from the moon.

In order to light buzz up.

So that he's actually not
in the shadow?

The lunar surface is actually
very dark.

It's... we see this
with this light here,

But, in fact,
it only reflects about 8%.

To 10% of the light
that comes in.

So if it only reflects
8% to 10% of the light.

That's actually striking
the lunar surface.

And it's not that reflective,

Then doesn't that kind of
make the point?

Yeah. And I guess that's what
we're going to test.

Right. Let's do this first test.

Black ceiling. Black walls.

Let's do it. Here we go.

For this to be an accurate
experiment, we need a control.

So first, we'll do one version
with the floor.

And the walls in black,

And everyone nearby
in dark clothing.

To minimize reflections.

Then we'll change
the color of the floor.

So it matches
the reflective properties.

Of the moon's surface.

Alrighty.

You know, chad, this brings
back lots of memories.

- I bet good ones.
- Yeah, very good ones.

I'm pretty excited
for today's experiment.

Because I actually get to go
back to my astronaut roots.

And put on the spacesuit.

Now chad and I get to play
the parts.

Of neil armstrong
and buzz aldrin.

You know, I'm pretty excited
to think about...

I never did a spacewalk on my
two missions, sts-122 and 129,

But now, I'm gonna get a
spacewalk on the moon, you know.

- Here we go.
- Space man.

Alright, I think we're
all in position,

So, good luck
getting up that ladder.

Thanks, man.

I'm going to go head over
to where neil was.

- Okay.
- Let's do it.

It's really dark on this.

Alright.
I think we're all in position,

So good luck
getting up that ladder.

Thanks, man.

It's time for us to roll up
our sleeves.

And see for ourselves
if the surface of the moon.

Was reflective enough
to illuminate buzz aldrin.

As he came down the ladder
of the lunar module in shadow.

I'm gonna head over
to where neil was.

- Okay.
- Let's do it.

With the help of a little
hollywood magic,

We're conducting two tests...

Recreating the same
lighting conditions.

As the apollo 11 moon landing.

First up, it's the control test.

With a black floor
and a black backdrop.

It's really dark on this.

Pretty close in terms
of the shading.

Yeah, but...
I think it's pretty good.

What did you guys see?

You were doing it
in the shadows.

- Yeah.
- So the next question is,

When you put down
a lighter surface...

Right... Will it change?

Okay, let's give it a shot.

Now that we have our control,

We need to change the color
of the floor.

So it matches
the reflective properties.

Of the moon's surface.

Based on peter's research,
this should make everything.

Only 10% brighter,
which is not a whole lot.

Will it really make
any difference?

Alright. Visors down.

Alright. Let's go.

Good luck, buzz.

- Look at that.
- Yeah.

Right here.

- It's...
- Shading.

Amazing what that...

- Notice the...
- Yeah.

Okay, so, right away,
what I see is that everything...

The light's a lot more
filled in here.

The ground itself is brighter
than that black surface.

And that's the effect of that
scattered, ambient light.

Right.

That's proof right there
that the light is scattering.

Yeah.

This is actually
pretty surprising.

You can see a lot
of detail here.

The light seems to be
bouncing all around,

But is it only coming
from the ground?

There's also
another source of light.

It's coming from
neil armstrong's suit,

Which is white.

I mean, this guy...
Look how bright he is.

He's just like a beacon
shining up.

So my suit was what
was reflecting.

And lighting up buzz as well?
Exactly.

- Big giant reflector.
- Not just the moon's surface...

- Not just the moon's surface.
- But also me.

You were also the source. Yep.

And that's why it could look
like there was light on buzz.

When he was
coming down the ladder.

Yeah. That's exactly right.
Okay.

So, peter, do you
agree with that?

Of course. I think this really
makes that point.

So, basically, I've heard
this argument for years.

From the conspiracy community.

That, you know, you have to have
a second light source.

Or you have to have a bunch
of people with reflectors.

In order to get this effect
and get these shadows filled in,

But I think we've pretty
conclusively proved here...

We've shown that the surface
itself and even neil's suit,

Which never occurred
to me before,

Could act like big reflectors.

Right. Putting the light...

Scattering the light
into the shadows.

And making those photographs
completely viable.

Alright.

Well, that test of the
moon-landing footage.

Was awesome.

I even got to wear a spacesuit.

And play neil armstrong
for a day.

I've been involved in
many investigations.

During my ten years.

As an fbi
counter-terrorism special agent,

And this investigation
was just as comprehensive.

And, frankly, as eye-opening
as any I've ever seen.

We've gone from
one investigation to the next.

The apollo 1 fire.

Wow.

The myth that the soviets
had a super rocket.

The claim the lunar lander
never could have worked.

And probably the craziest
one of all,

The entire landing
was filmed in some set.

I know it's human nature
to question things.

We don't understand or events.

That we don't
experience firsthand,

But we've turned
over every rock,

We've tested the evidence,

We've applied
scientific reasoning.

To the biggest
conspiracy theories,

And the results point to...

We did walk on the moon.

This investigation definitely
made me mad at times,

But it was all worth it to prove
that all the sacrifices made.

By my nasa brothers and sisters
got us to the moon and back.

So mike, do you still stand
by the conspiracy theory.

That we never landed
on the moon?

Surprise. I'm all in.

Case closed.

Case closed.
We went to the moon.

Pi-yow. I always knew it, guys.

I know I had a lot of questions.

About the legitimacy
of the moon landing,

But I'm really glad
that we were able.

To successfully
answer all of them.

Just because I needed
to see more proof.

Doesn't mean
that I wanted to believe.

That neil armstrong,
buzz aldrin,

And michael collins
were anything other than.

True american heroes.

Case closed...
We went to the moon.

Let's go.

You won this one. I know.