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.
