All language subtitles for Truth.Behind.the.Moon.Landing.S01E03.Killing.Armstrong.WEBRip.x264-CAFFEiNE

I think you should
read this carefully.

This is the way
we could get to the moon.

It's pretty remarkable
that it even flies.

Bara: There's a lot of people
who don't believe

We actually brought
any rocks back from the moon.

We brought a lot of rocks
back from the moon.

Bara: None of nasa's decisions
made any sense.

Narrator: In 1962, nasa scrapped
its plan to get to the moon

In favor of a 50-year-old idea
from an obscure soviet engineer.

The question is why.

So, we have a mystery
we're looking into.

Man: You know, it's amazing
that we haven't learned more

About the best way
to get to the moon.

Our concern is the integrity
of the lunar module

And all its systems.

Narrator:
And did this risky strategy
prove too dangerous to pull off?

Armstrong almost got killed
trying to fly it.

So nasa had to fake the lunar
landing to save face.

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

♪

You know, I have a problem
with something.

Oh.
You have lots of problems.

♪

What I want to know is how did
nasa build a spacecraft

That was able
to get from the earth

To the moon
and back again?

Jenkins:
That's actually a good question

Because nasa's chief engineer,
wernher von braun,

Didn't believe we could build
a big enough rocket

To make it
to the moon and back.

♪

Wernher von braun was nasa's
lead aerospace engineer

And a former member of the
nazi ss during world war ii.

After the war, von braun was
one of more

Than 1,500 german scientists
and engineers

Who secretly moved to the u.S.

In operation paperclip
to help america

Defeat the soviets
in the space race.

The soviets
were beating us.

But not for long.

Bara:
The soviets had taken the lead,

So president kennedy
threw down the gauntlet

To get us to the moon
before they could.

Because that goal will serve
to organize

And measure the best
of our energies and skills.

The problem was von braun
initially put his weight

Behind a flawed strategy
called direct descent

That ultimately
proved unworkable.

In direct descent,

The astronauts fly
from the earth to the moon

And back again
in a single spacecraft.

In order to do that, you'd need
a vehicle that could hold

Enough fuel
for both legs of the journey.

But that would require a rocket

Almost as big as
the empire state building.

It would be too costly
and take too long to develop

And build in time to meet
jfk's end-of-decade deadline.

In short, nasa was stuck.

They needed a new plan
and they needed it fast,

And sometimes when you're
under pressure like that,

You make bad choices.

So nasa went to plan "b."

Actually, plan "c" thanks
to a little-known

Nasa engineer
named john houbolt.

Let's take a look
at this footage

From the apollo 11
control center in houston,

The day we landed on the moon.

Okay, now pay attention
to von braun right here.

"john.

Thank you, thank you."

Of all the people
involved that day,

Von braun
is congratulating someone

Who's been entirely
invisible ever since.

John houbolt.

Von braun got all the glory for
engineering the moon landing,

But he made a point
to thank the man

Who came up
with the ultimate plan.

It's really amazing
because here you have von braun,

Who is undeniably the u.S.'s
most important rocket developer

And a showman himself,

Actually acknowledging
somebody else.

This is a major reason
why I don't believe

We made it the moon and back.

None of nasa's decisions
made any sense.

How did we go from superstar
von braun's plan

For a giant rocket to some new
plan from a nasa nobody?

I'd imagine that finding out
about houbolt

Will be key to testing the
conspiracy claim that in 1969,

There was no way we made it
to the moon and safely returned.

♪

♪

Jenkins: I'm gonna do some
digging on my own.

John houbolt died in 2014,

So I'm heading to the buehler
planetarium in davie, florida,

To talk to an expert
on houbolt's theories,

Historian bill causey.

Hi.
Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you as well.

I'm hoping he can shed
some light

On houbolt's role
in all of this.

So, we have a mystery
we're looking into.

Who was john houbolt
and what was his plan?

Well, you know, it's amazing
that we haven't learned

More about john houbolt.

As a mid-level manager,
a lot of people didn't think

John was a serious voice
in how to go to the moon.

Houbolt wrote a piece
about lunar-orbit rendezvous,

And he sent a copy of it
to von braun,

And he said to von braun
in his cover note,

"I think you should read
this carefully.

This is the way
we could get to the moon."

Speaking of that,
can you explain

The lunar-orbit rendezvous?

The best way to get to the moon
would be to take two vehicles,

Have one of them land on
the moon, with two astronauts,

Have the third
astronaut orbit the moon,

And then when the two astronauts
would lift off from the moon,

Join the third astronaut,
and they would all come home.

Lunar-orbit rendezvous
was actually first proposed

By a soviet engineer
and mathematician

Named yuri kondratyuk almost 50
years before the moon landing.

He published a book of his ideas
about interplanetary flight,

Including trajectories,

To take spacecraft to
lunar orbit and back to earth.

Even today, the route
is known as kondratyuk's loop.

I find it ironic that a soviet
originated the concept

That nasa claims
got us to the moon

Rather than one of
von braun's ideas.

The other idea was called
earth-orbit rendezvous.

For earth-orbit rendezvous,

Nasa would launch
multiple rockets

That would rendezvous and dock
in earth's orbit.

There, they would assemble,
fuel, and detach a lunar module

That would fly directly
to the moon

And back into earth's orbit.

Melvin: The reason von braun
seized on earth-orbit rendezvous

Was because it would create
a platform

That would remain
in earth's orbit

For other programs
beyond apollo.

Essentially, it would create
the world's first space station.

Jenkins: To this day,
some scientists insist

That earth-orbit rendezvous

Would've had
the best long-term results.

Von braun and the rest
of his team at nasa

Had settled
on earth-orbit rendezvous,

But it was not
without its challenges,

Including a heavy-fuel payload

Needed to fly to the moon
and back again.

Lunar-orbit rendezvous,
with its lightweight lander,

Would require less fuel.

But houbolt's solution
was falling on deaf ears.

When john first
proposed his idea,

It was not
well received.

He was very stubborn,
and he was convinced

He had the right idea
of how to get to the moon.

Bara: Imagine all these nasa
scientists

Debating the right plan,
and no one could agree.

Maybe they should've spent
less time arguing

And more time building.

The thing that I have a problem
with is houbolt's lander itself.

Armstrong almost got killed
trying to fly it.

Melvin: What's amazing is you
have wernher von braun,

Who's been working on a plan
to get to the moon for years,

This rocket pioneer.

And then you have this outsider,
john houbolt,

Who figures it out himself.

All I got to say is going up
against von braun

Could not have been easy.

I'm reconnecting
with leland and mike

In alexandria, virginia,

To give them the full download

On the david and goliath
struggle

Between houbolt
and von braun.

We're on our way
to interview an eyewitness

Who claims to have information
on how it really went down.

Back in the 1960s,
david chudwin was a reporter

Who was looking into the space
race at kennedy space center.

♪

Like von braun, chudwin
was at kennedy space center

The day of
the apollo 11 launch.

♪

I was at the liftoff.

I watched the liftoff
from the v.I.P. Site

Where president johnson

And all the other
dignitaries were.

This was 3 1/2 miles
from pad 39, the launch pad.

We couldn't get any closer
because if the rocket exploded,

It would kill everybody.

Von braun was at a press
conference that I attended.

It was the heads of all
the different nasa centers.

And the thing that I remember
most from that press conference

Was they asked him,
"how big is this?

How important is this?"

And he made a very
telling statement.

He compared it to when
amphibians came out of the ocean

And settled onto the land.

Whenever a former ss officer
starts talking about evolution,

I get a little nervous.

So, there must have been
a lot of rivalry

Between the two camps,

The e.O.R. People and the l.O.R.
People, right?

Everybody felt very strongly
that their way

Was the best way
to get to the moon.

It was an important
national decision

To figure out how
to meet kennedy's goal.

You see, it was a very gutsy
decision

To do lunar-orbit rendezvous
because it involved a rendezvous

Between two spacecraft
in lunar orbit,

250,000 miles away from earth.

Von braun was reluctant
to even consider houbolt's idea

Because an earth-orbit
rendezvous,

If something went wrong,

The spacecraft could just
parachute back to earth.

But in lunar-orbit rendezvous,

Even a small problem
could leave our astronauts

Stranded in the cold vacuum
of space.

Now, do you think we would've
made it to the moon

If we had gone
with von braun's plan?

We would've made it to the moon,

But we would've never have
met kennedy's deadline

Of reaching there and returning
by the end of the decade.

Jenkins: Earth-orbit rendezvous
would require

Nasa to develop
two enormous rockets

And the construction
of a platform in earth's orbit,

And that would likely put us
past kennedy's deadline.

In a conference where they
were looking

At the different ways
of getting to the moon,

Von braun kind of threw
in the towel

And said that he agreed
with houbolt's method

Of getting to the moon.

Von braun was eventually
persuaded

By the engineering arguments

That lunar-orbit rendezvous
was the way to go.

Now, at nasa, it's always
been my experience

That the best idea
always wins.

Von braun was savvy enough
to know

That he needed
to get behind the idea

That would get us
to the moon first.

Do you think there was
any animosity

Towards houbolt
from von braun?

Von braun was complimentary
to houbolt

And very graciously invited him
to come to mission control

During the landing
to be a witness to it.

So he wasn't supposed
to be there originally?

Von braun's who invited him
personally?

-Right, exactly.
-That's incredible.

Yeah.

Von braun's really
regarded high, yet houbolt,

Outside of nasa,
no one knew who he was.

Well, I don't think houbolt was
in it for popularity or fame.

Houbolt
was a very serious engineer.

He was not a political figure,

Whereas von braun was
very much a politician.

And then everyone lives
happily ever after, right?

Wrong!

Because now von braun
is committed

To houbolt's
overly complicated plan,

Which has one major defect

That I believe stopped us
from getting to the moon.

♪

John houbolt is one of
the most interesting mysteries

Of the moon landing.

Houbolt
managed to convince nasa

To go
with lunar-orbit rendezvous,

But that was the easy part.

The real challenge was putting
this very complex plan

Into effect.

Sure, nasa commits
to houbolt's plan,

So the thing that I have
a problem with here...

Is houbolt's lander itself.

This is a big deal
to the conspiracy community.

This thing is like a giant
rube goldberg contraption.

It's got wires and tubes
and fuel tanks,

And it was really,
really difficult to control.

Houston, apollo 11.

How many miles out
do you have us now?

About 50,000.

So, instead of flying one rocket
to the moon and back,

Nasa commits to an overly
complicated plan

Involving multiple
spacecraft...

Houston, we're all go.

...Including a totally new one

Called the lunar
excursion module,

Or the lunar lander.

You're go for landing.
Over.

Piloting that vehicle
is virtually impossible.

Full forward, drifting
to the right a little.

I mean, it's hard enough
to take off or land a plane

Or a helicopter on earth

Because of things like wind
shear and gravitational pull.

♪

On the moon,
it's a whole other deal.

There's virtually no atmosphere
and just a sixth of the gravity.

So to take off and land,

You'd need a brand-new kind
of specialized vehicle

And an entirely new set
of skills to operate it.

♪

Do you expect me to believe
that neil armstrong

Flew this crazy contraption

For the very first time
and it went flawlessly?

Come on.

Melvin:
It sure wasn't beginner's luck.

Neil trained for
hundreds of hours

In all kinds of conditions.

Here's a video of neil training.

♪

At the time, nasa had
the world's

Most sophisticated computerized
flight simulators.

♪

Look, this is
like a video game.

This is not
really representative.

That's how we train.

Nasa also developed the lunar
landing training vehicle,

The lltv, that armstrong
learned to fly.

It was very, very difficult
to control.

In fact, armstrong himself
almost got killed

Trying to fly it.

I think we have
that footage.

There he is.

♪

♪

Uh-oh.

Okay,
there's neil ejecting.

Wow.

All: Oh!

The close call.

Yeah, he got out.

Bara: Yeah, I mean, the controls
were so sensitive

That he just over-controlled,
and that's --

Again, that's nasa's
best pilot,

So I'm gonna call b.S.
On houbolt's great plan.

So your conspiracy theory,
your b.S., is

If he couldn't control
that vehicle,

That we couldn't control
it descending to the moon?

Yeah, I mean, the lunar lander
itself, the lem,

Was actually harder to control
than that training vehicle.

Jenkins: I got to call b.S.
On mike calling b.S.

I don't need someone
who's never been to space

Telling me how hard it is
to fly in space.

♪

To prove mike wrong,

Chad and I are heading
to edwards air force base

In southern california.

I've got a lead on an eyewitness
who created the vehicle

That armstrong
had to eject from

So we can find out
what really happened.

You know, if there's a way
to figure out

The real story
of the lunar module,

Then this is the place --
edwards air force base.

There are conspiracy theorists
that say

That neil armstrong
crashed the lunar lander

And therefore couldn't have
landed on the moon.

Whoa, chad,
look at that.

♪

This is the place --
edwards air force base.

Edwards air force base
has been a primary testing

And training base
for the air force

And the space program
since 1933.

Jenkins: This is where the
legendary chuck yeager

Famously broke the sound barrier

Aboard the bell x-1
back in 1947.

Melvin: It was where the first
test pilots were proving

That they had
the right stuff.

Jenkins:
This is where armstrong trained
to get ready for the moon,

And now, thanks to a former
colleague of leland's,

We have security clearance
and a promise of cooperation

With our investigation.

-Hey, kevin.
-Leland, hey.

-How you doing?
-Good to see you again.

-Long time.
-Absolutely.

This is my buddy
chad jenkins.

How are you, kevin?
Nice to meet you.

Come on in.
Have a seat, guys.

Melvin: Kevin rohrer is a good
buddy of mine from my nasa days.

He's now the chief
of strategic communications

At the neil armstrong
flight research center

Based at edwards.

He promised to help us
find what we're looking for.

One of the things that we're
trying to figure out is,

Did the lunar lander work?

And the next thing is,
there are conspiracy theorists

That say that neil armstrong
crashed the lunar lander.

So if he couldn't handle that,
how could he land on the moon?

Well, it's true.
He did eject and crash one.

But I've got one thing

That I think you'd
really be impressed with.

What's that?

Whoa, chad, look at that.

This is one of the lunar
landing training vehicles,

Which were prototypes
of the lunar excursion module

That neil armstrong
landed on the moon.

They were the unsung heroes
of the apollo program.

You gonna
go sit up in there?

Yeah, I want to get in there
and go for a ride.

Yeah.

Bara: You couldn't pay me to
ride in that thing.

Its controls were
ridiculously sensitive

And it almost killed
our best pilot.

Armstrong may have
survived the crash,

But there was clear evidence
that houbolt's

Big plan
wasn't gonna fly.

Hey, tony, can we get this
thing operational, you think?

Give us a little time.

Jenkins: Leland -- he's like
a kid in a candy store.

Unfortunately for him,

This thing hasn't been
operational for decades.

Melvin: This really looks like
a tinker toy

With engines and jets,
you know.

For someone to be
sitting up there flying,

As a simulation
for the lander,

Is pretty remarkable
that it even flies.

It's like the first human drone
ever to be built.

That's what I see it looks like.
-Yeah. Drone.

I just think it's cool from
a history standpoint

That neil armstrong
and all the astronauts

Under the apollo
trained on this.

Yeah.

Hello, gene.
I'm leland melvin.

This is my friend chad.
-Hi. How are you?

Jenkins: Kevin arranged for us
to meet

With former chief engineer
gene matranga.

He offered to reveal the story
of what really happened the day

That armstrong lost
control of the vehicle.

You're a living piece
of nasa history.

It's a pleasure to meet you.

The pleasure is mine.

As one of the chief engineers,
gene knows all the secrets.

Let's see if he's willing
to give them up.

Could this thing really fly?

Yes, it really flies.

So, there are conspiracy
theorists out there

That don't believe that
this vehicle could balance

On a thin column of thrust.

What do you say to that?

I say that we demonstrated
that it does it.

It works.
The proof is in the pudding.

Melvin:
The conspiracy theorists say

That the lunar lander
was too unstable to fly.

They insisted that it would've
been impossible

To hover balanced
on a thin column of thrust

And that any movement
would've caused it

To spin out of control.

But the truth is, every rocket
must balance

On a column of thrust.

This stability problem
is as old as rocketry itself.

But engineers had already
solved the issue

Of rocket balance by the 1940s.

Man:
This is but a small part
of the training necessary

To learn to fly
the lunar module itself.

Melvin: The lunar lander used
an onboard computer

That had two guidance systems
to correct for balance.

They would automatically
adjust the center of gravity

Based on the movements
of the module.

This is really another case
of conspiracy theorists

Thinking something's impossible

Because they don't understand
the science.

How does this work?

It works at the jet engine

Supports five-sixths
of the vehicle weight,

Which simulates
the lunar gravity.

It always points
straight down.

Jenkins: On earth, we live on
the bottom of an ocean of air

Weighing us down.

But the moon has no atmosphere.

So this test vehicle
has to compensate for that.

The vehicle is allowed to tip
because of the gimbal system.

A gimbal is a pivoted support

That allows the rotation of
an object around a single axis.

The reason it's used is so that
the jet engine

Always points down
toward the surface,

Allowing the rest of the craft
freedom to maneuver.

And it allows the vehicle
to maneuver the way

It would on the moon,
getting the very extreme angles

That they would have to have
to successfully maneuver it

To where
they wanted to land.

You had to do all of this
to simulate the lunar condition.

Sure, the engineers at nasa
had it all figured out.

Theoretically it worked.

It could get off the ground,

But an aircraft
is only as good as its pilot.

And if it's too hard to operate,
it's basically useless,

And that's what
we were dealing with.

Hey, gene, I'm gonna go up
in the cockpit.

Take a look.

♪

Leland is lucky that thing

Hasn't been
operational in years,

Or we might have to find
ourselves another astronaut.

So, your two hand controllers.

So, you got three degrees
over here,

And then one degree over here
going up and down.

Yes.

Okay, so four degrees
to fly this.

What's remarkable is
how primitive

This is compared
to the advanced equipment

I was used to working with
on the space shuttle.

Maneuvering the wrong way
just by one degree

Could lead to disaster.

You know, this gives me
an even deeper appreciation

For what neil armstrong
had to deal with.

So, you had your comm system
here in the back.

I see a lunar sim switch.
What does that do?

That puts you into
the lunar simulation mode

Where the engine
is gimbaling

And the vehicle
is performing

The trajectory
you want to perform.

The lunar sim switch is the key
to getting the correct feel

You would need to land
on the moon.

It simulates what it feels like

If gravity is only
one-sixth of the earth's.

I think I understand
the controls,

And I wish we could get
this thing going again

And give it another shot.

♪

Jenkins: So, what was the
timeline once president kennedy

Announced we were gonna go
to the moon

When you all started developing
this training module?

We came up with the idea
in 1961.

We came up with a conceptual
design, and it was crude,

But it gave the idea
of what we wanted to do.

The vehicles ultimately
got delivered to us in '66.

Okay.

We made
our first flight in '67.

Wow, that wasn't a lot of time
to practice.

How close was this -- how close
did this replicate

The lunar module
once they got to the moon?

It replicated it exactly.

-Did it really?
-Yes, it did.

Sure, it replicates
the lunar lander,

But if you can't fly the thing
in southern california,

You sure as hell
can't fly it on the moon.

I watched the video
of the actual crash,

And it looked like he was
pitching up and rolling

Before he ejected
out of the vehicle.

-Yes.
-Now, what caused the crash?

The problem wasn't with
the vehicle itself.

It was the way
that it was operated.

It was a human error.

Is he saying nasa's best pilot

Wasn't able
to handle the vehicle?

Man: Apollo 11, apollo 11,
this is houston, over.

Armstrong and aldrin are cramped
in this rather flimsy vehicle

That is descending quickly
towards the moon's surface.

Communication is spotty,
the computer's freezing up,

And fuel is very limited,

And they're fast approaching
the one-minute mark,

60 seconds before
a mandatory abort.

Forward, forward.

♪

It's the 1960s
human drone.

This is the first
human drone.

Melvin: Yeah.

♪

Jenkins:
Now, what caused the crash?

Matranga: The problem wasn't
with the vehicle itself.

It was the way
that it was operated.

It was a human error.

Somebody on the ground
was watching to see the usage

Of the fuel as it was expended,
and he got distracted.

Oh, and he
ran out of fuel?

He ran out of fuel, yes.

♪

Melvin: So neil didn't have
the insight on the vehicle

To see
that he was running out?

He did not, no.

We telemetered all the
information to the ground,

And we relied very heavily
on ground people

Monitoring those things.

And then they could radio
to neil then?

-Yes.
-And that never got --

That communication
never got passed.

-Never happened.

-Wow.
-Wow.

♪

Armstrong had to rely
on his ground crew.

But as an experienced pilot,
he knew when he was in danger.

When he hit the emergency
ejection switch,

Small rockets propelled
his seat upward,

And an explosive charge
opened his parachute.

No matter how good the craft
and the pilot,

Sometimes things do go wrong
and you need a backup plan.

So we all know about neil's time
that he crashed one of these,

But how many times did he fly
this before and after?

I know he had about 20 flights
when he crashed it.

And so he flew it a number
of times

Besides just the one time
he crashed.

-Absolutely.
-Yeah.

You know, this is really typical
of conspiracy theorists.

They take one little detail

And blow it way,
way out of proportion.

I can't wait to see mike's face

When we drop
this truth bomb on him.

So, gene, how did
neil armstrong's training

With this help him
land on the moon?

It gave him the confidence,
the feel psychologically.

If neil didn't have extensive
training in the test vehicle,

I believe the landing
of the apollo 11

Could've ended in tragedy.

When he flew the lunar lander
to the moon's surface,

Things didn't go
as originally planned.

The navigational computer
made an error

And had them on course
to land in a boulder field.

So neil had to manually
override the system

And fly the lander
to a safer area.

He was dangerously low on fuel,

So every move
he made was crucial.

Neil made the comment

And it was repeated
by several other people

That if they had not had this
experience to feel this feel,

They would have been
very seriously

Considering
aborting on the moon.

Oh, really?

Jenkins:
It's July 20, 1969,

And the apollo 11 lunar module

With neil armstrong
and buzz aldrin on board

Detaches from the command module

And begins its descent down
to the surface of the moon.

Almost immediately,
things go wrong.

Apollo 11, apollo 11,
this is houston, over.

Radio communication between
the lunar module

And mission control
starts to falter.

[ radio chatter ]

And then, four minutes
into the landing sequence,

The onboard computer
guidance system

Suddenly displays
the error code 1202.

Armstrong and aldrin don't know
what that means,

And they don't have time to look
it up in the flight manual.

Armstrong
radios to mission control.

Armstrong: Give us the reading
on the 1202 program alarm.

Roger. We got you.
We're doing that alarm.

Down on earth,
240,000 miles away,

The flight controllers
at houston scramble

To figure out what
the problem could be.

Picture it.

Armstrong and aldrin are cramped
in this rather flimsy vehicle

That is descending quickly
towards the moon's surface.

Communication is spotty,
the computer's freezing up,

And fuel is very limited.

More than half a billion people
around the world

Are on the edge of their seats,
watching the landing on tv.

They know how high
the stakes are.

But very few understand

Just how dangerous
the situation actually is.

There are three possible
outcomes --

Land safely, crash,
or abort the mission.

Mission control decides
that to abort

During the middle
of the landing sequence

Without a functional computer

Is almost as risky
as trying to land,

So they proceed.

And armstrong takes
manual control of the landing.

700 feet, 21 down,
33 degrees.

Manual latitude control
is good.

But then they discover
another major problem.

They suddenly realized they're
not where they should be.

They overshot the planned
landing area.

Instead of a nice, flat plane,

Now there's a crater field
with massive boulders.

Armstrong levels the module

And starts looking for
a better place to touch down.

They're whizzing
along the surface

And running low on fuel.

Meanwhile, down on earth,
mission control

Isn't exactly sure
what's going on.

700 feet, 21 down,
33 degrees.

Armstrong and aldrin are fast
approaching the one-minute mark,

60 seconds before
a mandatory abort.

60 seconds.

But there's a major problem.

They're in very low orbit.

Forward. Forward.

Altitude velocity lights.

Luckily, armstrong sees
a viable target ahead.

30 seconds.

30 seconds, fuel almost gone.

Only 10 feet above the surface.

The descent engine blowing up
so much dust

That visibility
is almost impossible.

3 feet down, 2 1/2.

We've got some depth.
Contact lights.

Okay, engines stop.
Command override off.

And then suddenly touch down.

Tranquility base here.
The eagle has landed.

Mission control,
which has fallen silent,

Explodes with relief
and celebration.

Roger, tranquility.
We copy on the ground.

You got a bunch of guys
about to turn blue.

We're breathing again.
Thanks a lot.

The eagle has landed.

So, without this, we probably
would not have landed

On the moon.

It's a distinct
possibility.

If anything, neil's crash
helped us identify

What some of
the potential problems were

And made sure
the actual lunar lander

Was ready for
a successful moon landing.

Tranquility base here.
The eagle has landed.

♪

Jenkins: A lot of people
base their suspicions

Of the lunar lander,
really,

The entire moon landing on
the fact that during training,

Armstrong barely ejected in time
before the lltv crashed.

But it turns out he flew dozens
of times without incident.

And while we were at edwards,
we obtained some old

Nasa training films,
and look what we discovered.

Melvin: It's performing just
like it's supposed to.

And it's balancing on
a coordinated system

Of rocket engines.

This footage --
and there's plenty of it --

Is proof positive that the lunar
exploration module

Was a viable way
to land on the moon.

Yeah, mike, I think the evidence
is pretty convincing.

I mean, upon dozens upon dozens
of tests without a failure.

Yeah, I've actually never seen
this footage before.

I've only seen the footage
of armstrong,

You know,
crashing and ejecting, so...

♪

I got to say this is
fairly impressive.

And, you know, this training
is really crucial.

It gave armstrong
the confidence.

As he was descending
onto the lunar surface,

He, you know,
went into manual control.

He overrode the auto-flight
control system

To land the eagle.

Look, this video footage
is all well and good,

Bara: But it still leaves me
with one overriding question.

Where is the evidence?

If we went from the earth to the
moon, where is the evidence?

Where is that?

Training videos and official
testimony are fine,

But if these guys
want to convince me

The moon
landing actually happened,

I need to see
something tangible,

Some physical evidence.

There's a whole lot of questions
about the lunar rocks.

People who don't believe
we actually brought

Any rocks back
from the moon.

We brought a lot of rocks
back from the moon.

♪

-Hey, josh.
-How you doing?

-Leland.
-Good to see you.

Mike, thank you
for coming today.

You know, mike wants physical
evidence we've been to the moon,

So I'm gonna give it to him.

-Hi.
-Leland.

-I'm bret bennington.
-Bret.

Hi, bret. I'm mike.

I'm taking him to the cradle
of aviation museum

In garden city, new york,

To check out moon rocks brought
back from the lunar surface

And to talk to curator
josh stoff

And geologist bret bennington.

Bara: Nasa claims it brought
back rocks from the moon,

But their true origin and
authenticity are up for debate.

There's a lot of people
who don't believe

We actually brought any rocks
back from the moon.

We brought a lot of rocks back
from the moon, a lot of samples,

And they're really
interesting and unique.

Melvin: The apollo missions
collected 2,200 samples

From the lunar surface.

Josh, there were --
what? -- Six missions

That brought
moon rocks back?

How many pounds?

About 840 pounds,
I believe in total,

Were brought back
on six missions.

Bara: There's a whole lot
of questions

About the lunar rocks
and soils

And the samples
that were brought back.

How do we know
that the moon rocks

That were brought back
were actually from the moon

And not just earth rocks?

Here we go.

Mike's conspiracy theory
is flaring up again.

What he needs is a healthy
dose of science.

You know, every rock
has a story to tell.

I mean, the reason
why geologists study rocks

Is because locked up
inside the rock

Is the information about
the origin of the rock,

About the history
of the rock,

What the rock has experienced
since it formed.

And putting together
that information from rocks

In different parts
of the moon,

We could put together
the history of the moon itself.

It is important to understand

That nasa's mission was more
than just planting a flag.

One of the main objectives
was to study

The geology of the moon,

And collecting samples on the
surface was a big priority.

The apollo astronauts trained
for their missions

By collecting rock and soil
samples in mexico, alaska,

And other locations
throughout the american west.

Neil armstrong received
geologic training on iceland

Where the country's
basaltic rock

Was similar to the rocks
found on the lunar surface.

What is the difference between
a moon rock and an earth rock?

So, it turns out that moon rocks
are similar to earth rocks

In some ways, but quite
different in other ways.

The earth is
a very wet planet.

There's water on the surface.
There's water in the interior.

The moon is
a very dry world.

Now, water is a highly reactive
chemical substance.

When you look at moon rocks,
especially when you look at them

Microscopically,
you don't see the evidence

Of chemical activity
caused by water

That is ubiquitous
in earth rocks.

In other words, just from
the fact that you can tell

If they were never
actually exposed to water,

That indicates they're
from some other place?

The geologists who first looked
at the moon rocks had trouble

Recognizing what
they were looking at.

For example, basalt.

Very common type of rock
on the moon,

Very common type of rock
on the earth.

Terrestrial
basalts show evidence

Of having reacted with water,

And geologists sort of used that
to help them recognize

That they were looking
at a basalt.

I know a handful of facts
about rocks,

And one is that basalt is
created by volcanic eruptions.

The last time I checked,
there were craters on the moon,

Not volcanoes.

Basaltic rock is volcanic.

Is that correct?
-Yeah.

Generally, so, I mean, how did
those form on the moon?

I mean, there aren't any
active volcanoes on the moon.

It doesn't look like there
ever were.

Was it from the crater impacts,
the meteor impacts?

There were plenty of volcanoes
on the moon in the distant past.

When you look up at the moon
in the sky, the dark areas,

The seas, the maria,
those are enormous lava flows.

Melvin: The dark areas
on the face of the moon

Are actually dried lava.

They are left over
from ancient volcanic eruptions.

Volcanic mountains rarely formed
because lunar lava bubbled up

And spread quickly,
flooding large areas.

These dark areas are
called maria,

Which is latin for "seas."

So you can look
at the moon rocks

And tell that they've
never been exposed to water

And that they're billions
of years old,

So they couldn't possibly
have come from the earth.

Exactly.
That is the conclusion.

And there is tiny amounts
of water

That can be found in moon rocks,
but to find that water,

You need very, very intensive
analytical techniques.

You look at any earth rock
and you can see that that rock,

Throughout its existence,

From when it formed
to the present,

Has been interacting
with water.

Bara: This is like taking
an intensive geology class,

Which I completely respect,
but there are other ways

That material from the moon
can get to the earth,

And it could be used as false
evidence of a moon landing.

In the conspiracy community,
there are people who say

That the samples
that you're looking at

Are actually lunar meteorites
that have been blasted off

The surface of the moon
and landed here on earth,

And that's what
you're actually looking at,

Not rocks that were brought back
on the apollo missions.

In 1967, two years
before the apollo missions,

Wernher von braun
and other nasa officials

Took a trip to antarctica,

Where they gathered
small chunks of meteorites,

Which some say were later
passed off as moon rocks.

Would they look different
under a microscope

Than a genuine lunar rock sample
brought back by the astronauts?

♪

♪

♪

Bara:
In the conspiracy community,
there are people who say

That the samples
that you're looking at

Are actually
lunar meteorites,

Not rocks that were brought back
on the apollo missions.

We are at the cradle of aviation
museum in garden city, new york,

Talking to geologist
bret bennington.

We're trying to convince mike
that the moon rocks brought back

By the astronauts from
the landing are the real deal.

It's an uphill battle.

Would they look different
under a microscope

Than a genuine lunar rock sample
brought back by the astronauts?

Well, they would look different
because, for one thing,

Going through
the earth's atmosphere,

They develop what's called
a fusion crust

From the heat of entering
the earth's atmosphere.

Fusion crust is a thin
coating of glass

That covers the outside
of a meteorite.

When a meteorite falls
through the atmosphere

At very high speeds,

Friction with the air
raises its surface temperature

To over 3,000 degrees
fahrenheit.

The fusion crust forms
as the rock begins to cool.

Also, once they're on
the surface of the earth,

They get wet, and so
the minerals inside the rock

Begin to react
to the surface of the earth,

Whereas as a pristine sample
of moon rock

Brought back
by the apollo astronauts

Kept in a sealed environment,

Delivered to the lunar
receiving lab in houston,

Is not going to have
any evidence

Of having ever seen any water.

So you can tell a lunar
meteorite

From a pristine sample
of moon rock.

Nice.

Dr. Bennington revealed

That many of the rocks
brought back from the moon

Were shared with geologists
from around the world,

Who all verified
their authenticity.

To me, that verifies that we
shut down the conspiracy theory

That we never landed
on the moon once and for all.

I think we've closed
the case, mike.

Well, I mean,
I have to agree.

It seems like the evidence
really supports the fact

That these rocks
are from the moon.

The question is,
how did they get here?

I don't know,
but I do think

That are pretty
consistent with --

I'm in agreement that I think
we're looking at probable --

Probable samples
of real moon rocks.

♪

♪

We gathered so much substantial
evidence in the past few days

That I think we really shattered
several conspiracies

That challenge
the moon landing.

So, guys,
we debunked the theory

That the lunar lander
couldn't be trusted,

And we had a geologist confirm
beyond a shadow of a doubt

That nasa's moon rocks
are authentic.

Both important revelations,
don't you guys agree?

I vote yes.

Yeah, I guess
I got to --

A little louder,
a little louder.

Okay, fine, I agree.

What's up with that?

Melvin: You know, I'm down for
some healthy skepticism,

And I like mike.

But I got to say, watching the
geologist sack him every time

He said
some conspiracy garbage,

Well, it just brought
a big smile on my face

That still won't go away.

But there is one other thing
that we haven't discussed.

I spoke too soon.

And this is
a really big deal.

The moon rocks were impressive,
but a bigger issue still exists.

Why can't we see
all the materials

That were supposedly left behind
on the moon by the astronauts?

Why haven't we seen
the landing sites,

The footprints,
the left-behind equipment,

The descent stage
of the lunar module?

Where is that?

Man, he's always wanting more,
isn't he?

-Right.
-Our investigation continues.