Original subtitles

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.