Okay, explain it to me
one more time. Why do you think
the moon landing was faked? We're both skeptics, right?
So think about it skeptically. There's no way NASA
had the technology to go to the moon. They just filmed it
on a sound stage, that would've been
way easier. Yeah, that's what
conspiracy theorists think. But the truth is faking
the moon landing in 1969 actually would have been harder than just going to the moon
in the first place. Here, I'll show you. Fake Moon Landing, take one. All right, in this scene
you're on the moon and it's real
and we're fooling America
and we're fooling America and we're fooling America and action! See?
Stanley Kubrick just shot a guy jumping around on set and then they played it
back on TV. Sorry, but given
the filmmaking and lighting technology
at the time, that actually wouldn't
have been possible. Right, the lighting. Look at how bright it is. Look at these shadows. This was clearly shot
in a studio. (lights powering on) (man)
Actually... creating that lighting
would've been essentially impossible
in a studio. Melinda, meet Mark Schubin. He's a forensic
motion picture analyst and an Emmy-winning
light fellow of the Society of Motion Picture
and Television Engineers. Thanks, Adam.
Using image forensics, I can tell you that
the light source we see in the moon footage
is actually parallel sun rays
with no diffusion. If you look at the photos
from the Apollo mission, you can see that
all the shadows are parallel
all the shadows are parallel all the shadows are parallel because the light source is
93 million miles away. (Adam)
But if you try to recreate
that same photo
But if you try to recreate
that same photo But if you try to recreate that same photo using studio lighting,
the shadows diverge. Huh...
Back in the '60s,
Back in the '60s, Back in the '60s, the only way to recreate
that effect would be
that effect would be that effect would be of laser lights to build a wall of millions
of laser lights
of laser lights so close together,
they'd be like
they'd be like they'd be like pixels on a TV screen. No, no, no, no, no! This lighting is all wrong! I need lasers, Peter! Lasers! But lasers back then
were big and costly, so rigging together
that many of that size would've required
an enormous apparatus that probably would've cost more
than the entire Apollo project. Perfect! This is great! Now we just need
millions of these lasers. Oh, uh, I don't know
if that's in our budget... Or the country's. Honestly, Peter... you make me furious. And in those days, (Mark)
And in those days,
And in those days, the only lasers that were
practically available were red. Which means that color photos
we have from the moon landing would have been impossible. I can't shoot in red light! It makes this moon
look like a bordello! Correction!
We need millions of ultra rare,
multi-colored lasers. How do I explain... I mean,
that's not even a remotel-- (high-pitched voice)
"How do I explain...
Even a remotely..." Go back to film school, Peter! Now today, we could recreate the correct lighting
with computer graphics. But in 1969,
those didn't exist.
Hmm.
Hmm. Hmm. I've asked my colleagues
in forensics and in movie production and
given the parallel light rays and the detailed color photos,
we just cannot think of any way they could've faked
the moon landing with the technology
they had at the time. Hmm...
Thanks, Mark.
Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Mark. Convinced? Maybe that's what
they want you to think. What if NASA secretly
created computer graphics and just kept it
from us for 40 years? Well, then an astronomical
number of people would've had to
keep that secret. Like over 400,000
NASA employees... You want all 400,000 of us
to keep our mouths shut? Yes, please.
Good luck.
We love gossip.
Good luck.
We love gossip. Good luck.
We love gossip. (Adam)
... Scientists from Australia,
Spain and England
Spain and England Spain and England who said they
independently picked up the moon landing
transmission from space... And why would we
lie for you? You're always making fun
of our Vegemite. (Adam)
... And the Russians,
our Space Race rivals who had every reason
to prove us wrong. It's been 50 years,
and we haven't even claimed that you faked it. You beat us
fair and square this time. But we'll get you back...
(snickering) in 2016! But where's the tangible proof
that we went to the moon, huh? There isn't any.
Actually, there is.
Actually, there is. Actually, there is. While the astronauts
were on the moon, they laid out
a reflective material called retro reflectors. So today,
when an observatory on Earth aims a high-powered laser
at them, it bounces right back. Cut! Cut! Shut it down! This is impossible! Oh, no, no, no! Wait! It still could have
been faked. All you'd have to do is
secretly develop computer graphics technology
decades ahead of its time, convince multiple governments
to lie on our behalf, and then somehow get
retro reflectors to the moon without
actually going there. You could that, right? Forget it, lady.
It'd be easier to put a man on the moon.
